KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 343/2012

JUDGMENT DATED: 17.12.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 319/2011 of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Principal, Maharajas Technical Institute, Thrissur.

2. Senior Joint Director (PS), Department of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Joint Controller, Board of Technical Examinations, P.O. Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. M. Hashim Babu)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Shalija K.S., Pattali House, P.O. K.P. Puram, Chentrapinni, Thrissur-680 687.

(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 319/2011 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short “the District Commission”).

2.  The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in connection with the education of the complainant in the institution of the 1^st opposite party.  

3.  The appellants were called absent and set exparte before the   District Commission.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked for the complainant.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to issue diploma certificate and mark list to the complainant.  The District Commission further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. 

4.  Heard. 

5.  The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since the institution of the appellants is an educational institution, the respondent would not come within the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.  The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the National Commission” for short) in Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 1 (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) to support his argument.  In paragraph 51 of the Manu Solanki and others (supra), the National Commission held as hereinbelow:-

“51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion, tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sports etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act”. 

6.  The institution of the appellants is admittedly an institution under the Board of Technical Education, imparting education.  Therefore, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Manu Solanki and others (supra), the institution of the appellants would not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable.  Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission stands set aside.  Since the complaint is found to be not maintainable, we are not entering into the merits of the case.  

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 319/2011 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgement.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                            AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER      

jb