Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/698/2015

Mukul Vasu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Centre Head, FIITJEE - Opp.Party(s)

B.B.Bagga Adv, V.K. Diwan Adv & Ravi Mohan Khanna Adv.

13 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	698 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	08.12.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	13.05.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Mukul Vasu through his mother and natural guardian Poonam Bharti w/o Sh.Rajinder Singh, R/o H.No.1150, Sector 10, Ambala City   

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

The Centre Head, FIIT JEE, SCO No.321-22, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.  

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN                                   PRESIDENT

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                MEMBER

                   MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA                            MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.B.B.Bagga, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Sharad Sharma, Advocate

 

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the mother of the complainant had seen some ads of Opposite Party soliciting students for undergoing Clase XI/XII JEE preparation during the sessions 2015-16.  At that time the complainant was studying in Class-X, as such her mother contacted the Opposite Party for undergoing coaching for JEE preparation at their Chandigarh Centre for sessions 2015-16.  Accordingly, the parents of the complainant visited the Opposite Party on 25.1.2015 and handover 9 cheques totaling Rs.1,99,529/- as advised, the details of which are given in Para No.5 of the complaint (An.C-1).  It is averred that the Opposite Party obtained the said cheques as advance coaching fee for two years in one go for the session 2015-16 and 2016-17, to commence in April, 2015, after completion of 10^th board examination of the complainant in end of March, 2015.  It is also averred that the Opposite Party was clearly told not to present any cheque until 15.3.2015, as Master Mukul Vasu.  However, inspite of all that the OPs got encashed two cheques of dated 25.1.2015, amounting to Rs.57125/- on 3.2.2015. Then the complainant visited the Opposite Party and raised the issue to which the Opposite Party behaved rudely, and the complainant demanded refund of the amount of Rs.57,125/- encashed by the Opposite Party as well as remaining 7 cheques, but they did not pay any heed. Thereafter, a letter dated 11.2.2015 was also sent to the Opposite Party, for treating the admission of Mukul Vasu as cancelled for sessions 2015-16-17 and refund of Rs.57,125/- & 7 cheques, followed by letters dated 1.5.2015, 12.5.2015 as well as legal notice (Ann.C-3 to C-6), but to no result.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed the reply and took objection to the effect that as the complaints against the educational institutes for admission or refund of fee etc. is not maintainable before the Consumer Forums, hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the enrollment of the complainant with Opposite Party institute for two year classroom programme for JEE (Advanced) and deposit of fee, as alleged is admitted.  However, it is submitted that at the time of enrolment, the complainant was duly informed that once his son was got admitted in the course, then the fees deposited shall not be refunded under any circumstances (Ann.OP-2).  It is pleaded that the parents of the complainant after understanding the terms & conditions of the Opposite Party institute admitted/enrolled the complainant Mr.Mukul Vasu in Two years classroom programme for JEE (Advanced) regular week contact classes.  The encashment of two cheques amounting to Rs.57125/- have been admitted. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]        The core question to be decided in this case is, as to whether, the complainant falls under the definition of the consumer in view of the principal laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012 decided on 9.8.2012. The answer to the question is the negative. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Another’s case (supra) held as under: -

      “In view of the judgment of this court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity.  Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in 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.”

 

7]       Besides this in  Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Revision Petition No.638 of 2014, decided on 02.05.2014, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that neither the student, fell within the definition of a consumer, nor  the Opposite Parties fell within the definition of Service Providers.

 

8]       Our view is further strengthened from the order passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.244 of 2014-M/s FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Mayank Tiwari, decided on 23.9.2014 whereby the appeal filed by M/s FIITJEE Ltd. was accepted and the order of this Forum was set aside and it was held that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer.   The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

 

9]       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court/agency for redressal of her grievance.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

13^th May, 2015   

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                              (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.698 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 13th day of May, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.                     After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member