Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 02-06-2015, passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in CC/495/2014, whereof the complaint case has been dismissed on maintainability ground.

The instant complaint case was dismissed by the Ld. District Forum on the ground that since the bone of contention between the parties revolved around ‘education’, it was not adjudicable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In this regard, we heard the parties and gone through the documents on record.

It appears from the petition of complaint that the instant case was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents on account of their inability to arrange promised placement for the Appellant. 

Such being the nature of dispute, it hardly requires any emphasis that it was not education related dispute per se. It may well be that disputes related to admission, fees, marks etc. concerning an educational Institution cannot be agitated before the Consumer Fora. However,  when the subject matter of dispute remains alleged unfair trade practice, in our considered opinion, the same certainly comes within the purview of this beneficial legislation.  

Whether education comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not, the issue has been put at rest by a seven Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors, reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 at page 583 (pr. 118) observing inter alia as under:

"In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of activity is, ex hypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry".

The Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana And Ors. vs Vishwa Buddha Parishad And Ors., reported in 2000 CTJ 801 (CP) held that “Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act”. Incidentally, no other larger Bench of the Hon’ble Court subsequently altered this decision.

Very recently, the Hon’ble National Commission in Krishan Mohan Goyal v. St. Mary’s Academy & Anr., reported in II (2017) CPJ 204 (NC), after deliberating upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC); (ii) Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, reported in III (2010) CPJ 19 (SC); and (iii) P.T.Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in SLP (Civil) No. 22532/2012, has been pleased to observe as under:

“None of the above referred three cases, in my view, would apply to a case where the school is found to be deficient even in providing the basic aid and assistance which any educational institution will provide to a student studying with it.  Deficiency in imparting education which is the core function of an educational institution, in my view is altogether different from rendering such basic help and assistance to the students.  A student may not be the consumer of the school as far as the core function of imparting education or taking examinations is concerned, but, the position would be altogether different where the deficiency on the part of the educational institution is found in an activity altogether different from imparting education, where a consideration is being charged for such an activity on the part of the educational institution.  When a school admits students for the purpose of imparting education to them, it also undertakes to render a reasonably possible help and assistance to them, whenever required by the students  who is in distress….. The educational institution cannot be permitted to wash-away its responsibility to provide such minimal aid and assistance on the pretext that it was not rendering any services to the students”. 

Thus, taking into consideration our findings as well as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission, we are inclined to allow this Appeal; thereby set aside the impugned order.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 16-09-2019 for fresh adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law.