State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Vice Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev ... vs Sumeet Kaur on 24 March, 2014
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.985 of 2012
Date of institution:26.07.2012
Date of Decision :24.03.2014
1. Vice Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
2. Head of Law Department, GNDU, Regional Campus Ladhewal,
Jalandhar.
3. Dr.Tejinder Kaur, Dean, A.A.& S.W Mata Nanki Girls Hostel,
GNDU, Regional Campus Ladhewal, Jalandhar.
........Appellants.
Versus
Sumeet Kaur d/o Ravinder Pal Singh, ADA, resident of House No.LIG
487, Bhagu Road, Model Town Bathinda -151001.
.........Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
08.05.2012 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate JASBIR SINGH GILL, MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the appellants/OPs (hereinafter called 'the appellants') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order dated 08.05.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as 'respondent') was allowed by the District Forum. First Appeal No.985 of 2012 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent took admission in B.A.L.L.B (Honors) five years Course with the appellant on 04.08.2010 vide Roll No.1028 and paid tution fee Rs.11,000/-, others funds, migration etc Rs.26,420/-, amalgamated fund Rs.1500/- and library security Rs.800/- and the total paid Rs.39,720/- to the appellant vide receipt No.070787 dated 04.08.2010 and the respondent also deposited all the original education and other required certificates with the appellant on 04.08.2010. He also paid Rs.3000/- as mess security vide receipt No.2868 dated 26.8.2010 and Rs.10840/- as Girls Hostel Charges to the appellant. Before taking admission with appellant she has sent an application for admission in M.B.B.S to Kendriya Sainik Board, New Delhi but no intimation was received from them for filing admission in MBBS till the last date of admission in first year B.A.L.L.B. Honors. On 16.9.2010 Kendriya Sainik Board called for interview at New Delhi and on the same day they confirmed for final admission in MBBS at S.S.Medical College Rewa (MP) and due to this reason, the respondent left the seat of Five Years B.A.L.L.B. Course and she intimated this fact to the appellant in writing on 18.09.2010 at the time of receiving original educational & other certificates which were handed over to them at the time of admission. The respondent demanded the above mentioned fees to the tune of Rs.39,720/- and Hostel Charges + Mess Security amounting to Rs.13840/0 which was denied by the appellant. Hence the complaint and prayed that appellant Nos.1&2 be directed to refund rs.39,720/- which were paid to them as tuition fee and other charges with interest@ 18% per annum from the date of its deposit, appellants No.1 & 3 be directed to refund Rs.10,840/-of Hostel Charges with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its First Appeal No.985 of 2012 3 realization, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellants filed their written reply with having preliminary objections that the respondent has not come to the court with clean hands. No cause of action has been accrued to the respondent to file the present complaint and respondent is not the consumer under Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it was admitted that respondent has taken admission in B.A. LL.B 5 years course and deposited the required fees and also admitted that she has deposited the mess security vide receipt No.2868 and Rs.10,480/- as Girls Hostel Charges and another allegations were denied.
4. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
5. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant Nos.2&3 to refund Rs.11,000/- on account of tuition fee, Rs.10,000/- out of funds but migration fee and amalgamation fee are not refundable, Rs.800/- library security and Rs.10,840/- as hostel charges (total Rs.32,640/-). Appellant Nos.2 and 3 to refund this amount of Rs.32,640/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Appellants to deduct Rs.1000/- as handling charges out of Rs.32,640/- (Total Rs.31,040/-), failing which respondent will be entitled @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till final realization. Since Vice Chancellor has nothing to do with day to day Administration of University, the complaint qua appellant No.1 stands dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.05.2012, the appellant has come up in appeal.
First Appeal No.985 of 2012 4
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contented 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.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent came up with the plea that on the basis of that judgment it cannot be concluded that the complaint was not maintainable and there is no ground for allowing the appeal.
9. Admittedly, the appellant No.1 is University. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy and another's case (supra) observed as follows:-
"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."
10. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, appellants are not a service provider and, as such, the complaint under the Act was not maintainable against them.
First Appeal No.985 of 2012 5
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum under appeal dated 08.05.2012 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
12. The sum of Rs.15,820/- 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 appellant No.1 by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.03.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Judicial Member
March 24, 2014. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
Lb/- Member