Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/163

CBSE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHASHANK GOEL - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 27.01.2017

 

 

First Appeal- 163/2013

 

(Arising out of the order dated 17.12.12 passed in Complainant Case No. 773/11 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi)

 

 

Chairman,

Central Board of Secondary Education,

PS 1-2 Industrial Area,

I.P. Extension, Patparganj,

Delhi-110092.

        ….Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

Sh. Shashank Goel,

R/o 1, Rani Jhansi Road,

New Delhi-110055.

 

Sharda University,

Sharda University Campus,

Plot No.32-34,

Knowledge Park III,

Greater Noida,

U.P. 201306

                                                                    ….Respondents

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 17.12.12 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) whereby CC No.773/11 has been allowed.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

 

                 A complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent/complainant alleging therein that the respondent/complainant took admission with respondent-2/OP-2 under AIEEE on 13.7.10 and deposited a fee of Rs.35,000/- by way of two demand drafts.  Subsequently he had withdrawn the admission on 24.7.10.  It was alleged that the respondent-2/OP-2 confirmed the cancellation and assured that fee would be refunded in due course of time.  Thereupon respondent-1/complainant wrote letters to the respondent-2/OP-2 but no response was given.  Ultimately he had filed a complaint before the District Forum making prayer for the refund of fee to him, Rs.60,000/- for grant of compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

3. The complaint was contested by respondent-2/OP-2 by alleging that the Central Counseling Board (CCB) was a necessary party and as the said Board was not made a necessary party, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.  On merits, it was alleged that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent-2/OP-2, as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed.  It was also alleged that the amount was not paid to the respondent-2/OP-2 and the admission was taken from CCB.
4. No reply was filed on behalf of the appellant/OP-1 nor the appellant/OP-1 appeared before the Ld. District Forum, as such the appellant/OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte.
5. The respondent-1/complainant and respondent-2/OP-2 filed evidence by way of affidavits.  After hearing the arguments of the parties, Ld. District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP-1 and respondent-2/OP-2 in not refunding the fee and directed both the parties jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- to respondent-1/complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit till it is finally paid to the respondent-1/complainant.  Ld. District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP-1 has argued that Ld. District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the complaint filed before the Ld. District Forum was not covered under the Act.  It is contended that CBSE is neither a profit making organization nor rendering any service.  It is contended that the function and duties of the CBSE does not come within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as laid down under the Act.  It is contended that Ld. District Forum has passed the order without having jurisdiction to deal with the matter.  Ld. Counsel for appellant/OP-1 has relied upon the judgements of the Apex Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159; P.T. Koshy & Anr. vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC).
8. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent-1/complainant to assist us.  Ld. Counsel for respondent-2/OP-2 has supported the arguments of appellant/OP-1.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC) has held as under:

“In view of the judgement of this Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgements has categorically held that education is not a commodity.  Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition.  Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

 

10.  Following the aforesaid judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the National Commission in Revision Petition No.1684/2009 titled  Registrar Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Tanvi decided on 29.01.2015 wherein the complaint was filed for refund of fee, has held that complainant is not a ‘consumer’.
11. In the present case, the respondent/complainant is also seeking refund of fee from the appellant/OP-1 and respondent-2/OP-2.  In view of above discussion, respondent-1/complainant cannot be said to be a ‘consumer’.  The Ld. District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the case.
12. In view of finding on jurisdiction, the case is not discussed on merits to avoid any prejudice being caused to respondent-1/complainant.  Present appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum in CC No.773/11 is set aside.  There is no order as to costs.
13. The complainant shall be at liberty to seek his grievances before the appropriate Forum/Civil Court in accordance with law.  The respondent-1/complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.
14. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
15. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President