Delhi

StateCommission

A/393/2016

FIITJEE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. SNEH LATA - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH M. GOEL

27 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments:27.02.2020

Date of Decision : 02.03.2020

FIRST APPEAL NO.393/2016

In the matter of:

 

Fiitjee Ltd.,

29 A Kalu Sarai, Sarvpriya Vihar,

New delhi-110016.

Through It’s AR,

Shri Ashish Kuamr Agarwal.                                                       …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

            Smt. Sneh Lata,

W/o. Shri Ved Prakash,

R/o. 6105, B-8, Vsant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070.                                                             ………Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The OP has filed present  appeal against order dated 02.07.16 passed by District Forum in CC no.151/2010 allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to refund Rs.33,090/- towards 50% of the tuition fee paid by respondent with interest @6% p.a. from institution of complaint till realisation and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation. Further it was directed that if the appellant does not comply with order within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order, it would be liable to pay interest @9% p.a.
2. It is not necessary to enter into the facts because recently larger bench of the NC in CC no.261/12 titled as Manu Solanki vs. Vinayak Mission decided on 20.01.2020 has put an end to the controversy whether the coaching centres who impart facility to get admission in competitive courses are not excluded from purview under Consumer Protection Act. It is only those institutions which are recognised by University or Board of  Technical Education and award any degree or diploma who are outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
3. The main plea of the appellant as taken in ground  (c)of the appeal is that District Forum has ignored pronouncement in cases mentioned in the said sub-para. Those judgements held that education is not a commodity and the institutions are not providing any service. So they are not covered under Consumer Protection Act. That plea is no more available in view of the larger bench decision of the NC referred to above.
4. Otherwise the impugned order is quite detailed and reasonable. The appellant had not adduced any evidence to show that the seat vacated by the respondent remained unfilled. The District Forum directed to refund 50% of the fee only. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
5. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
6.      One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
7.      File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                      MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•