BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 5^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed against Education Institution under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 (herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs:-

(a) Direct the OP to refund fee of Rs.99,400/- with interest at 24% till the date of realization.

(b) Direct the OP to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards mental agony and other distress.

(c) To grant any such other relief.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant got admitted her daughter Praavinya Janakiram in 11^th Grade of OP Education Institution by paying Rs.99,400/- on 07.04.2019 towards annual fee, one quarter fee and transport fee.

3. The teacher of the OP Education Institution spoke adversely to the children of the class with regard to the school syllabus and many children will not pass and eventually score 45%.  Therefore, complainant by sending E-mail dated 04.06.2019 asked the OP to refund the fee.

4. Daughter of the complainant moved from institution of the OP due to demotivation by the teacher of the OP institution.  Despite issuance of legal notice dated 19.11.2019 OP failed to refund Rs.99,400/-.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed for the above reliefs.

5. In response to the notice, the OP appears and files version.  The OP contends that there is no cause of action and present dispute has arisen from the contractual relationship between complainant and OP.  The complaint is not tenable.  This complaint is filed to get monetary reliefs. The complainant sumoto decided to change the school for the reasons best known to her.  This complaint is filed with frivolous allegations to pressurize the OP to refund the fee.  As per Clause 10 of the terms and conditions, the fee once paid, would not be refunded.  The complainant knowing this fact, files false complaint.  There is no deficiency of service.  Therefore, OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

6. The complainant files her affidavit evidence and relies on five documents.  The OP has filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager Legal and relies on one document.  Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.

7. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

8. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

      Point No.2:- In the negative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

9. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Before considering the controversy, we would like to refer the admitted facts.  The complainant got admitted her daughter Praavinya Janakiram for 11^th Grade in the OP Education Institution by paying Rs.99,400/- on 07.04.2019 towards fee.  But, on 04.06.2019 the complainant issued an           E-mail that she moved her daughter Praavinya Janakiram from ICICI to ISC and asked for refund of the amount. The Emails were exchanged between both the parties.  On 19.11.2019 the complainant called upon the OP to refund fee by issuing legal notice with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.  It is the specific contention of the OP that the complainant sumoto got shifted her daughter to another school and this complaint is filed with false allegations.  According to the OP, the fee paid is non-refundable.  Ex.R.1 is the copy of the application submitted by the complainant. The Clause 10 of para 3 of declaration signed by the complainant dated 17.11.2010 indicates that fee once paid will not be refunded. When the complainant agreed for such term, the complainant has set up untenable new theory, the teacher of the OP Education Institution demotivated her daughter.  It is true that on 15.06.2019, OP had sent a E-mail that approval of the management for refund was awaited.  The complainant has not disputed Ex.R.1. 
10. It is relevant to refer Section 2(42) of C.P.Act, 2019 which speaks about service.  This provision read thus:-
11. Section 2(42) of C.P.Act, 2019 speaks about services which read thus:

“Service:- means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal services.”

12. We are of the considered opinion that the complaint against Education Institution under the provision of C.P.Act, 2019 is not maintainable. 
13. This reasoning of us is supported by the following two decisions of Hon’ble National Commission which read thus:-

(1)The Hon’ble National Commission University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES) Vs. Anuj Kanwal reported in 2020(3) CPR 84 (NC) wherein it is held that Educational matters to do not come within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thus complaint is not maintainable.

(2) The Hon’ble National Commission in Manu Solanki and 8 others Vs. Vinayaka Mission University reported in 2020(1) CPR 773 NC wherein it is held that if an institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education.  It is not rendering any service.

14. The Hon’ble National Commission referring catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India categorically ruled that the complaint against Education Institution is not tenable.
15. When the complaint against Education Institution is not maintainable, the complainant is not right in saying that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  The complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service.  Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs.
16. Point No.3:- Having regard to the discussion made above, the complaint is requires to be dismissed. We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.   
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 5^th April, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-