State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Krishan Gopal Puri S/O Sh. Roshan Lal ... vs Gdr Day Boarding Public School, on 22 January, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 464 of 2009
Date of institution: 6.4.2009
Date of Decision: 22.1.2014
Krishan Gopal Puri S/o Sh. Roshan Lal Puri, resident of Greenland Colony,
Hadiabad, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. GDR Day Boarding Public School, Adarsh Nagar, Phagwara,
Distt. Kapurthala.
2. Prncipal GDR Day Boarding Public School, Adarsh Nagar,
Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate
First Appeal against the order dated 26.2.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.268 dated 21.11.2006 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that Rohan Puri and Rajat Puri FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 2 sons of the complainant were studying in the school of the Ops in 6th and 5th class. At the time of their admission, the respondents had increased the annual charges without the consent of the parents from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1200/- in the mid of the session. The complainant had made various representations to the School Management and the excuse taken by the respondents was that since the CBSE Board had granted affiliation, accordingly, the annual charges have been increased. The complainant contacted the CBSE Board on the telephone whereas they have intimated that they had not given any such instructions. The complainant alongwith his parents made peaceful protest against the arbitrary decision of the respondents. The names of children of the complainant were struck from the rolls of the school, which has caused a mental harassment and it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint with the direction to the Ops to take back the children in the School with the same fee and award Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties/respondents, who filed the written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is wholly mis-conceived, groundless and unsustainable in the eyes of law; the District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint and it is not a consumer dispute; the complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of the process of law; the complainant does not have any locus-standi to initiate the proceedings and that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous, rather it be dismissed as per Section 26 of the Act. On merits, it has been FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 3 admitted that the children of the complainant were students of 6th and 5th Class till 25.10.2006 and their names were struck off for non- payment of arrears of school dues for two months. It was further stated that every School receives monthly fee to provide education to the children and fee is received on monthly basis. The decision of intimation of the new fee structure was taken in Parents-Teachers Association of the School, unanimously, on 28.1.2006 and the same was effected from 1.4.2006 and the decision was formally announced in the grand function of Jashan-I Taleem held on 26.3.2006 wherein Deputy Speaker Lok Sabha, Parliament of India was Chief Guest. The complainant gave his application in his own hand wherein he mentioned the fee structure in question before the commencement of the session. It was denied that concession of Rs. 20/- was withdrawn. The complainant was aware of the fee structure, therefore, the complaint is merely an afterthought. One letter with criminal impersonation pretending to be Member of the PTA was given to the Principal of the School on 28.9.2006. The complainant is of criminal tendency and habitual intimidator. It was denied that any action taken by the School for non-payment of arrears of school fee was arbitrary. It was reasonable, rational and sound. The registered notice was issued to the complainant after giving opportunity to him to pay the arrears of school dues but despite that the school fee was not paid and the names of the wards of the complainant were struck off for non-payment of school fee, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant, therefore, the complaint is without merit and the same be dismissed.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 4
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copies of fee card Ex. CW-1/1 and CW-1/2, CW-1/5 to 10, term fee besides regular increase in tution fee Ex. CW-1/3&4, application to Principal Ex. CW-1/11 to 13, letter of Principal Ex. CW-1/14 and other letters Ex. CW-1/15 to CW-1/55 and affidavit of Ashok Kumar Sharma Ex. CW-2, affidavit of Shri Rajesh Paul Phull Ex. CW-3, affidavit of Chaman Lal Saini Ex. CW-4. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Office Clerk Ex. OPW- 18/1 to OPW-18/4, affidavit of Dr. Ashok Joshi Ex. OPW-19.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum did not see any merit in the complaint as in case the private institution gave competitive education, they have right to increase the fee, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate and learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate.
9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the learned District Forum did not FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 5 properly appreciate the proposition in dispute and without discussing evidence on the record, wrongly dismissed the complaint.
10. The admitted facts are that the wards of the complainant, namely, Rohan Puri and Rajat Puri were studying in the school of the OPs/respondents. As per the allegation of the complainant, the fee was increased in mid-session whereas on the other hand, it is the case of the Ops that it was increased in the beginning of the session. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the fee increased in between but whether that amounts to deficiency in service or whether the complainant comes within the definition of the 'consumer' has been decided in the latest judgment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.", 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) wherein it was held as under:-
"1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 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."
11. This judgment is based upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha", 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) wherein it was observed that "the Education Boards & Universities are not 'Service Provider' and the complaints against them are not maintainable and "Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur", 2010(4) CPJ 19 (SC) wherein it was observed as under:- FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 6
"The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant has, therefore, to be accepted that the Rule being prohibitory in nature, the District Forum or the National Commission could not have issued a direction which violates the aforesaid statutory provision. It is settled legal proposition that neither the Court nor any Tribunal has the competence to issue a direction contrary to law and to art in contravention of a statutory provision."
12. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where there is a dispute of fee that does not come within the domain of the Consumer Fora, therefore, firstly, the complainant does not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer or that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to try with regard to the fee structure in view of the latest judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. No contrary judgment was referred by the learned counsel for the appellant.
14. Even otherwise in case the fee has been increased, the learned District Forum has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "T.M.A. Pal Foundation v. State of Karnataka", 2003(1) SRJ 271 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Court that maximum autonomy should be given to the private institution including the fee. There is no compulsion on the students to attend private schools. They opt on their own on account of careness in their services as private school as the State Agencies have not been able to provide similar facilities in a competitive manner. It had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission "Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Deep Kishore Singh", II (1994) CPJ 22 (NC) that pricing is not a matter, which can be subject matter of the dispute.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 7
15. Certainly, the School is to provide the education. In case the complainant's son has not paid the fee, certainly, the opposite parties has the right to struck of the names of the wards of the complainant, therefore, in our opinion there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
16. Taking the case in any manner, we do not see merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 17.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
January 22, 2014. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
as Member