Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/132

JUNED AHMAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRICIPAL, SHUBHDEEP ARUVEDIC COLLEGE & HOSPITAL TADODA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 22.12.2016 passed in C.C.No.43/2016 by District Commission, Burhanpur)

 

JUNED AHMED,

S/O SHRI SOHAIL AHMED,

R/O KHANKA WARD, BURHANPUR (M.P)                                                          ….       APPELLANT.

 

                   Versus

 

PRINCIPAL, SHUBHDEEP AYURVEDIC COLLEGE

& HOSPITAL, TADODA, KHANDWA ROAD,

INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                                         ….    RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :   ACTING PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY               :   MEMBER

                                  

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                        Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

                Shri Ramesh Bhatore, representative of the respondent in person.

          

                                                        O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 09.01.2024)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:         

                   This is an appeal by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burhanpur in C.C.No.43/2016, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that the complainant in order to get admission in Ayurvedic degree in the academic year 2012-13 had deposited Rs.1,000/- with the opposite party-college of which no receipt was given and deposited caution money of Rs.5,000/- of which receipt was given. It is alleged that the

-2-

opposite party obtained a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards provisional admission for the academic session 2014-15 but neither the complainant studied in that session nor appeared in any examination as he got supplementary in previous session. It is alleged that since education level of the college was not good and so many students were failed and got supplementary, therefore, he repeatedly asked for refund of fee with caution money but the opposite party did not refund the same and TC. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party-college filed a complaint before the District Commission for refund of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest, TC and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony caused along with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

3.                The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant took admission through counseling and he had deposited Rs.1,000/- with the Counseling Committee, Directorate of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy (Bhartiya Chikitsa Padhati Evam Homeopathy), M. P. As per University rules, if any student got supplementary in two papers in the first year, he can continue to attend the regular classes of second year and on successfully passing the first year he can appear in the second year examination. As per government rules education fees is taken from the student once in a year for the complete course of four and half year. In reply to the correspondence made by the complainant, he was asked to approach

-3-

the college authorities in person for redressal of his grievance but despite information he did not appear before the college authorities and continued to make correspondence. On 12.02.2013 he was expelled from the classes on charges of indiscipline. He was also caught for copying. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court he is not entitled to get refund of fees instead the opposite party has to take Rs.1,80,000/- as fee with interest for one an half year.  It is therefore prayed that the compliant be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission holding that as the complainant after taking admission left the institution in mid-session and therefore he is not entitled to get refund of fee. It is further held that there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and hence dismissed the complaint.

 6.               Heard learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and representative appears on behalf of opposite party/respondent-college. 

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant made a submission that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the opposite party/respondent failed to produce any evidence that after he left the college, his seat remained vacant for the whole session. He argued that the District Commission did not consider this important aspect that neither complainant studied in that particular session nor appeared in the examination, then how can the

-4-

opposite party charged fee from him. He argued that the opposite party till today did not return the original documents and TC due to which he could not get admission in any other college.  He therefore argued that impugned order deserves to be set-aside and this appeal be allowed.

8.                Representative appearing on behalf of opposite party argued that since the complainant left the institution in mid-session, therefore he is not entitled for refund of fee. All the original documents have already been returned to him. He is not entitled to get any relief. He submits that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint and therefore, this appeal also deserves to be dismissed.

8.                As we carefully peruse the complaint, documents and the evidence placed before us, we observe that it is true that the complainant took admission in the opposite party college and left the college in mid-session. It is well settled principle that if any student left the college/institution in mid-session, his seat remains vacant for the whole session and therefore, he cannot claim for refund of fee deposited by him.

9.                During arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the opposite party be directed to return the original documents to the complainant. Representative appearing on behalf of opposite party opposed the said prayer and submitted that all the documents have already been returned to him. In this context, we find from the relief clause sought in

-5-

paragraph 9 of the complaint, the complainant sought no such relief with regard to refund of documents. In such circumstances, the prayer made by learned counsel for the complainant during arguments cannot be granted.

10.              Having gone through the record, we find that a preliminary issue as to whether educational institutions providing education and other activities to the students come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not, arises in this case and the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki & Others Vs Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases, I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore the complaint filed by the complainant/student is not maintainable. Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints” Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Rai Technology University Vs Prakurthi N. V. I (2023) CPJ 154 (NC).

11.              The law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki (supra) is fully applicable in the present matter and the Institute does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is not rendering any service.

 

-6-

12.              So far as the prayer of the opposite party/respondent that still they had to recover the amount of remaining fee and therefore, the complainant/appellant be directed to pay the remaining fee. Since the opposite party/respondent has not filed any appeal, this prayer cannot be granted.

13.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. It is hereby affirmed.

14.              In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

                      (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)     

                     Acting President                       Member