State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indian Institute Of Planning And ... vs Miss. Mousumi Banerjee on 25 February, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1142/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 01/08/2014 in Case No. CC/498/2013 of District North 24 Parganas) 1. Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) IIPM Tower, AQ-6, Sec-V, Salt Lake City, near Technopolis, Kolkata-700 102, represented by its Dean Professor Amlan Roy. 2. Indian Institute of Planning & Management (IIPM) Satbari Chandan Haula, Chattarpur, Bhatimineous Bhatimnes Road, New Delhi-110 024, represented by professor Partha Pratim Saha. 3. Amlan Roy, Dean of (IIPM) IIPM Tower, AQ-6, Sec-V, Salt Lake City, near Technopolis, Kolkata -700 102. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Miss. Mousumi Banerjee D/o Sudhir Kumar Banerjee, B-10, Krishna Kunja Apartment, Narayanpur, P.O.- Rajarhat Gopalpur, P.S. Airport, Kolkata - 700 136. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Abhik Das Mrs. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay Mr. Neeraj Jhunjhunwala , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Gourav Talukder., Advocate ORDER DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Dated : 25.02.2016 This appeal has arisen order dated 01.08.2014 in C.C. No. 498/2013 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North-24 Parganas (in short, Ld. District Forum.) By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case.
Case of the Complainant is that after a good talk with the OP-3, being Professor /Dean of the OP-1 and after consultation with her parents, she deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 09.10.2012 and later on deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/-. But, the classes did not start in the first week of February, as stipulated. Lastly, on 10.07.2013, the OPs denied to provide her with the BBA Course. Thereafter, she issued a notice through her lawyer but they did not respond. So, this case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the Complainant paid Rs.25,000/- for admission as retention fee and further deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the OP, who acknowledge her selection for the three years Undergraduate Programme in Planning and Entrepreneurship, Session W-13,IIM-UGP (B), Kolkata and also asked to pay non-refundable 1st to 5th instalment retention fee. Further, the Complainant attended the Classes for one day only. It has been stated in their prospectus that retention money once received would not be refunded. Lastly, it has been prayed to dismiss the complaint.
It is to be considered if the impugned order is a tenable one in the facts and circumstances of the case in the eye of law.
Decision of the reasons Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that education does not fall within the category of service. As has been categorically stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University- Vs - Surjeet Kaur in Civil Appeal No.6807/2008, decided on 19.7.2010 in which it was held that the Respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the Appellant rendering any service. He further relied upon a decision of this Commission in FA/936/2013, in which case, the appeal of IIPM, i.e., the present Appellants here was allowed.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the IIPM has gone into business by luring alleged lucrative professional courses to the gullible student and there has been misrepresentation, malpractice and unfair trade practice on their part. It is not at all an educational institution, but a fraud institute. He has relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz, Controller, Vinayak Mission Dental College and Anr. - Vs - Geetika Khare, Civil Appeal No.5213-5214/2010, decided on 09.07.2010, in which case the deficiency in service was considered against the Dental College. In the case of Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital-Vs-Bhupesh Khurana & others, Civil Appeal No. 1135/2001, decided on 13.02.2009, in which case also deficiency in service of the Dental College was found.
Amongst the citations, the one in respect of Maharshi Dayananda University is the latest one, Further the similar matter before this Commission in FA/936/2013, as referred by the Ld. Advocate by the appellant, appeal of the present Appellants, viz., IIPM was allowed quoting several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that state that a student is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for which the appeal allowed setting aside the impugned order and the petition of complaint thus stood dismissed. In the present scenario, the status of the Student is not that of a consumer. So, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed. [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER