State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aklia Education And Research Society vs Amanpreet Kaur Grewal on 13 November, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1124 of 2011
Date of institution : 21.07.2011
Date of decision : 13.11.2013
1. Aklia Education and Research Society (Regd.), Goniana-
Jaito Road, Bathinda through its Chairman.
2. Principal Aklia College of Education for Women, Aklia
Kalan, District Bathinda.
.......Appellants- opposite parties No. 5 & 1
Versus
1. Amanpreet Kaur Grewal D/o Kulwant Singh Grewal R/o 1495,
Phase-III, Model Town, Bathinda.
.....Respondent No.1-complainant
2. The registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala.
3. Regional Director, Northern regional Committee, National
Council for Teacher Education, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar,
Jaipur.
4. Sh. S.P. Bansal, chairman cum President, Federation of Self
Financed College of Education (Regd.) Punjabi University,
Chandigarh.
....Respondents-opposite parties
First Appeal against the order dated
24.05.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member. Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. A.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For respondent No.1 : None For respondent No.2 : Sh. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate For respondents No.3&4 : Ex-parte JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties No. 1 & 5 against the order dated 24.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint filed by First Appeal No.1124 of 2011 2 the respondent No.1/complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund the amount of fee deposited, along with the college security of Rs. 1,000/- plus Rs. 5,000/-, after deducting the proportionate fee for the period of one month for which the complainant attended the classes and to pay Rs. 2,000/-, as cost and compensation. As per the averments made in the complaint the complainant had taken admission in E.T.T. and deposited Rs. 5,000/-, along with Form No. 204175. In that Form, the option was given to the candidates to opt for any of the college out of Federation of Self Financed Colleges of Education, according to the merit list declared by that Federation. It was a computer generated system and no requirement of signature was required. She made the payments through e-cash and generated the computer receipt. The list was released by the Federation on 19.10.2010, she deposited Rs. 5,000/-, vide receipt No. 1687 and seat was allotted to her in Aklia College of Education-opposite party under General Category. On 19.10.2010, she deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00/-, as additional fee, vide receipt No. 5327. She deposited another sum of Rs. 21,500/- ,vide receipt dated 20.10.2010; which included the prospectus fee of Rs. 5,00/-, college security fee of Rs. 1,000/-, and college fee first installment of Rs. 20,000/-. She started her classes in the above said college but suddenly it came to her notice that the instructions of studies is in Punjabi Medium and mode of teaching was also Punjabi and that there was no arrangement for English medium students. Thereafter, she approached the Chairman of the College First Appeal No.1124 of 2011 3 but no relief was given to her. In fact she was ill-treated by this College and the other opposite parties. Unfair and mal-practices were adopted by the College with the support of the other opposite parties which caused mental tension, agony, pain, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial loss to her. There was deficiency in service on the part of the College, which cheated the public at large by making false documents. In view of all these facts she was entitled to the refund of Rs. 32,000/-, so paid by her, along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs. 11,000/-, as compensation for mental agony etc. She prayed for the issuance of the directions accordingly to the opposite party. The opposite parties filed their written reply in which they pleaded their defence that they are not liable to refund the fee etc.
4. Both the sides produced the evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties No. 1 & 5 came out with the contention that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 (P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.), the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant came up with the plea that on the basis of that judgment it cannot be concluded that the First Appeal No.1124 of 2011 4 complaint was not maintainable and there is no ground for allowing the appeal.
8. Admittedly, the appellants/opposite parties No. 1 & 5 are an Educational Institute. The following short order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Koshy and another's case (supra):-
"1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159 = 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C. 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."
9. In view of that judgment, it is to be held that the appellant/opposite parties No. 1 & 5 were not service providers and, as such, the complaint under the Act was not maintainable against it.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
11. The sum of Rs. 13,500/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, along with interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/opposite parties No. 1 & First Appeal No.1124 of 2011 5 5 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
12. The appeal could not be decided within statutory period of time due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
MEMBER
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
November 13, 2013 MEMBER
Kumud