Uttar Pradesh



RANJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)



11 Aug 2015


Complaint Case No. CC/894/2011
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:


CASE No.894 of 2011

       Sri Ranjeet Singh,

       S/o Sri Ramnarayan Singh,

       R/o A-4, Shankarpuri Colony, 

       Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow.



                  1. Sri Santosh Maurya,

                    S/o Sri Bharat Lal Maurya,

                     Manager, Intellectual Coaching Classes,

                     631/235, Shankarpuri Colony, Near Panchwati,

                    Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow.


                  2.  Sri Bharat Lal Maurya, Partner,

                     Intellectual Coaching Classes,

                      631/235, Shankarpuri Colony, Near Panchwati,

                    Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow.

                                                                               .......Opp. Parties



Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.



This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for refund of Rs.32,000.00 and for compensation etc.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that he had deposited total fees of Rs.32,000.00 on different dates for coaching of Civil Services with the OPs. At that time the Complainant was student of B.A. first year, hence he was told by the OPs that when he passes B.A. first year then he should attend the civil services coaching classes for 2 years. Believing the words of the OPs, the Complainant could not attend the coaching classes for preparation of the civil services examination in the year 2008-09 despite depositing fees for the same. After passing B.A. first year examination, he again went



to the OPs for coaching classes then he found that the coaching centre was closed. When he met OP No.2 who was partner in the aforesaid coaching centre then he told that his son OP No.1 was not well and since competent teachers were not available, hence the coaching session could not be started and as soon as his son will become alright the coaching classes will commence. He also told that his money was already deposited and when he passes second year then in the next session he will be given coaching of the civil services. Thereafter when the Complainant went again then he was told that OP No.1 was not well till then and the Complainant was assured by OP No.2 for permitting him to avail civil services classes in the next session whereupon the Complainant returned back. When the Complainant again went to OP No.2 after passing B.A. second year examination then he was told to come after sometime and when he went again on 08.09.2010, the OP No.2 told him that his son was doing private job and would not be able to run the coaching classes then the Complainant asked for the refund of the amount deposited by him with interest. The OPs told him to return the amount within 15days but when the Complainant went with his father on 10.11.2010 then the OPs did not return the amount and OP No.2 told that he would return the amount in three instalments with interest to them but when after three months the Complainant and his father went to OP No.2 on 15.09.2011 then he refused to return the amount and the OP No.2 stated that OP No.1 told to give only the half amount and the rest half shall be given by him but OP No.1 refused to give even that amount. When the OPs refused to refund the amount then the Complainant filed this complaint.  

          The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the OP No.1 is the manager and OP No.2 is the partner where for preparation of IAS and PCS examination, the coaching is imparted by the competent teachers to the students. In the aforesaid coaching classes, a certain number of students



are permitted to prepare for the IAS and PCS examination for which a certain fees is taken from the students as per rules. For the preparation of the examination of IAS and PCS, the students are charged fee for one session only and if the students do no turn up for coaching then the amount is not refunded. The Complainant remained absent for the entire session of 2008-09 and he kept saying that he would be coming next week but he did not and the OPs had to keep one seat vacant in the coaching. The OPs charged fees of Rs.36,000.00 for civil services coaching for one year but on the request of the Complainant they made discount in the fees and the Complainant had deposited Rs.32,000.00 in three instalments. The OPs never asked the Complainant to come after passing B.A. first year exam. The Complainant never attended the classes in 2008-09 despite repeated requests made by the OPs. The Complainant never contacted OPs in August 2009. The Intellectual Coaching Classes was not closed at that time and it was closed in the year 2011-12. The OPs never assured the Complainant for the refund of fees as no amount of Complainant, lies with the OPs. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

          The Complainant has filed rejoinder affidavit with ruling.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 4 annexures. The OPs have filed their affidavits. The OPs have also filed 4 annexures.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether this case is maintainable as according to the Counsel for the OPs they are educational institutions and therefore the case is not maintainable and whether the Complainant had paid Rs.32,000.00 for coaching of civil services with the OPs but



the coaching classes were not provided by the OPs to the Complainant and therefore the OPs committed deficiency in service if so what relief is the Complainant is entitled to.

          We first take up the point as to whether this case is maintainable in this Forum or not. In this regard, learned Counsel for the OPs filed the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors. wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “In Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the educational institutions are not service providers and the student is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and on the basis of the aforesaid ruling it is argued by the learned Counsel for the OPs that this case is not maintainable. In addition to the aforesaid ruling a number of pronouncements of Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble SCDRC have also been filed wherein it is held that in the matter of fees etc. pertaining to the educational institutions, the case is not maintainable in the Forum. It is however vehemently argued by the Counsel for the Complainant that this case is very much maintainable in this Forum as per the pronouncements of NCDRC passed in III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC). As per the rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the pronouncements of the Hon’ble SCDRC and Hon’ble NCDRC it is clear that the student is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. But from the facts of the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and those of Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble SCDRC what comes out is that the educational institutions are the institutions which provide education for the purpose of awarding degree, diploma or the certificate for passing an examination entitling the person concerned to make use of such a certificate, degree or diploma in furtherance of his career in life. In the instant case, the OPs run coaching classes for the purpose of preparing the persons for enabling them to



succeed in any examination, competition or otherwise. Therefore, here a question arises as to whether the agencies/bodies running such coaching classes can be dubbed to be an educational institution for the purposes of application of the aforesaid ruling and pronouncements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors, as mentioned above has dealt with the cases of such institutions where the institution were to hold some examination and thereafter to provide any diploma, degree or certificate as the case may be. Similarly in cases dealt with by the Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble SCDRC all the institutions were to hold certain examinations for providing degree, diploma etc. Therefore, institutions which have been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble SCDRC and Hon’ble NCDRC are quite distinguishable from the coaching classes being run by the OPs. It is noticeable that the persons running coaching classes were not to take any examination for providing any degree or diploma. They are merely there to prepare a particular person for the aforesaid purpose i.e. to prepare him for appearing in an examination to be conducted by an educational institution for obtaining a degree or diploma or to prepare the person for getting success in any competitive examination. Therefore the coaching classes of the OPs cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as educational institutions for which Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble SCDRC have given pronouncements and therefore the ruling of the Hon’ble NCDRC and those of Hon’ble SCDRC are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the Complainant has filed the pronouncement of Hon’ble NCDRC where the Complainant’s case as students was allowed by the Hon’ble NCDRC. So, from the aforesaid case even a case of refund of fee OP No.5 was found to be deficient in services in not being able to



provide recognised Universities certificates to the students after completion of the four year engineering course. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid ruling this case is certainly maintainable in this Forum. Besides as discussed above the coaching classes of the OPs cannot be defined as educational institutions and therefore it cannot be said that this case is not maintainable in this Forum. It will not out of place to mention here that in a fast developing and growing country education is expanding and there is a lot of competition for various institutions medical engineering etc. and with the purpose of enabling the students for preparing for such a competition examination, coaching classes such as the one in the instant case are mushrooming all over the country. Though their usefulness cannot be denied but the fact also remains that a number of such coaching institutes have sprung up for minting money only and the instant case is a glaring example of it.

          In the instant case, the Complainant is admitted to the coaching classes of the OPs for preparing civil services examination where the Complainant deposited Rs.32,000.00 on different dates but when he goes for attending the coaching classes then he is told that he should first pass B.A. first year examination and thereafter come for coaching classes of civil services and when he goes again after passing B.A. first year examination then on one pretext or the other such as the OP No.1 was not well etc., no coaching is given and it is only when he contacted sometime after then when he met OP No.2 for the coaching classes, then he was told that his son was doing private job and could not run the coaching classes and when the Complainant asked for the refund of the fee then they refused to refund the amount. The OPs though had taken the stand that Complainant himself never come to the coaching classes in the session 2008-09 but they admit that the coaching institute has been closed in the year 2011-12. No reasons have been given by the OPs as to why the coaching institute has



been closed. Under the circumstances, it gives credibility to the statement of the Complainant that OPs, first of all, did not allow the Complainant to take the classes without passing B.A. first year and secondly when he went for the coaching then they did not provide the coaching classes and subsequently coaching institute itself was found to have been closed. The OPs have taken a sum of Rs.10,000.00 on 12.07.2008, Rs.10,000.00 on 19.08.2008 and Rs.12,000.00 on 21.10.2008 as is evident from the photocopies of the receipts filed by the Complainant with his complaint. It is also noticeable that the OP No.1 Sri Santosh Kumar Maurya in his affidavit states that the Complainant took coaching classes from June 2008 till 2009 and thereafter he himself stated that he did not want to prepare for the civil services and stopped coming to the coaching classes but here the question arises as to how the Complainant was allowed to take the coaching classes in June 2008 when the fee itself was taken by the OPs from the July 2008 onwards. Besides there is statement of the OPs in their WS that the Complainant completely absented himself from the coaching session of 2008-09. Now this statement of the OPs in their WS is in contradiction of what the OP No.1 states in his affidavit in para 7 that the Complainant received coaching from June 2008 till March 2009. Obviously, the OPs are telling untruth, therefore it is wrong on the part of the OPs to say that the Complainant had taken coaching classes from June 2008 till 2009. So now, under the circumstances there are reasons to believe the statement of the Complainant. Therefore on the basis of evidence on record it can be concluded that the OPs did not provide the Complainant with the coaching classes for which they charged Rs.32,000.00 on various dates and when he kept pestering, then first of all, they stalled the matter on one pretext or the other and thereafter closed the coaching institute itself. Therefore, it is clear that the OPs have committed deficiency in service in not providing the coaching



classes despite charging fees for the same from the Complainant and hence they committed deficiency in service. The Complainant therefore is entitled to refund of the entire fees with interest from the OPs. The Complainant also appears to have been harassed in this case, therefore he is entitled to compensation as also cost of the litigation.


          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.32,000.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.

          The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as the cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.


     (Anju Awasthy)                                          (Vijai Varma)

          Member                                                    President    Dated:  11   August, 2015                


[HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma]
[HON'BLE MRS. Anju Awasthy]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.