Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Tesi University vs Rajender Rawat on 25 October, 2021

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 06.10.2021
                                             JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.10.2021
                                        FIRST APPEAL No.722/13

       IN THE MATTER OF
       TERI UNIVERSITY                                                        ........APPELLANT
                                                   VERSUS
       MS. RANJANA RAWAT                                                      .......RESPONDENT

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE            DR.         JUSTICE          SANGITA            DHINGRA    SEHGAL
       (PRESIDENT)
       HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
       Present: Ms. Anju Bhushan Gupta, Counsel for Appellant.
                None for Respondent.

       PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
       PRESIDENT
                                   JUDGMENT

[Via Video Conferencing]

1. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking setting aside of the order dated 25.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in Complaint Case no. 829/2009 filed by Respondent against the Appellant.

2. By the impugned order dated 25.05.2013, the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the Complainants/Respondents and ordered the Opposite Party/Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 43,789/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization w.e.f. 24.08.2009 and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.

3. The facts of the case necessary for adjudication as per the District Forum record are:

"Complainant's daughter got Admission in the Opposite Party University and paid a sum of Rs. 58,955/- towards fees. Afterwards, the daughter of the Complainant got admission in the Jawaharlal Nehru University and asked for the refund from the Opposite party and for issuing her migration certificate on 10.08.2009. Accordingly, Opposite party issued the migration certificate and refunded an amount of Rs. 7000/- out of the total fee deposited at the time of admission.

The husband of the Complainant then requested the O.P vide letter dated 26.8.2009 to refund the deposited fee in terms of circular dated 2.4.2007 issued by Ministry of H.R.D., which, inter alia, provided that, "The entire fees collected from the student, after the deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand Only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/ University to the Student/Candidate withdrawing from the Programme. It would not be permissible for the Institutions and Universities to retain the school/ Institution leaving certificate in original."

In reply to this letter, O.P vide their letter dated 27.8.2009 told the Complainant that, "as per the rules of the university, since the student has left the programme after joining and after commencement of the programme and also since the seat left vacant, have not been filled by another candidate, only security deposit is refundable in this case." The O.P filed their reply contending that the academic schedule of the course in which the Complainant's daughter was admitted commenced from 28.7.2009 and after lapse of the last date of withdrawal from the said course, the daughter of the Complainant requested for withdrawal/cancellation of her admission and desired for Migration Certificate without assigning any reason and the O.P without any inordinate delay issued Migration Certificate and refunded Rs. 7,000/- which was refundable on 24.8.2009. The Complainant was also explained that no further refund was payable.

Therefore, the Complainant filed this complaint requesting for directing the O.P to pay her the balance amount as admissible."

4. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 25.05.2013, whereby it held as under:

"Accordingly, allowing the complaint, we direct the O.P to refund to the Complainant sum of Rs. 43,789/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Eighty Nine Only) with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization w.e.f. 24.8.2009.

No. order as to compensation as the interest awarded in this case shall adequately compensate the Complainant.

However, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall be paid as cost of litigation to the Complainant by the O.P."

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant preferred the present appeal. The Respondent has also filed reply to the appeal.

6. Before delving into the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to discuss whether the jurisdiction to adjudicate a case involving an issue with respect to an Educational Institution can be decided by a Consumer Commission within the four corners of the Consumer Protection Act.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has already settled the law with respect to whether education being imparted by the institutions is covered within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act or not in the case titled Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur reported at (2010) 11 SCC 159, and has held that the 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 FA 722/2013 TERI University v. Ms. Ranjana Rawat. Page 3 of 6 matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532/2012 titled P.T. KOSHY & ANR. vs. ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS. dated 09.08.2012, wherein it was observed:

"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a conmmodity. 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. "

9. Further, in Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017 titled as Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar & Ors. decided on 02.11.2017, after taking into consideration the aforesaid two dictas, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159]. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. The order reads as follows:

"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159] 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 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.

In view of the consistent opinion expressed by this Court, the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 3571/2013 and Revision Petition No. 807/2017 are not in accordance with the decision of this Court and are therefore set aside. The civil appeals are allowed. "

10. It is noteworthy that the dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), was delivered on 19.07.2010, i.e. almost three years before the impugned order, despite which, the District Forum went on to adjudicate the case on merits, without having the subject matter jurisdiction.

11. Moreover, the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and Ors. vs. Vinayaka Mission University and Ors. reported at I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), has held as under:

"51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. "

12. Hence, from the aforesaid pronouncements, it is clear that except for the Coaching Institution, the other institutions, imparting education and connected activities, are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions. Consequently, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum suffers from infirmity and is not based on proper appreciation of law and the same is set aside for want of FA 722/2013 TERI University v. Ms. Ranjana Rawat. Page 5 of 6 jurisdiction to adjudicate the same as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

13. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the case since the same has to be decided before a court having the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate.

14. FDR, if any, filed as statutorily required, be returned to the Appellant along with the interest accrued till date.

15. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

16. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

17. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On:

25.10.2021 FA 722/2013 TERI University v. Ms. Ranjana Rawat. Page 6 of 6