State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karnav Sunil Kumar Shah & Anr. vs Primordial System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 6 October, 2022
FA NO./534/2016 D.O.D.:06.10.2022
MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH & ORS. VS. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 17.11.2016
Date of hearing: 20.07.2022
Date of Decision: 06.10.2022
FIRST APPEAL NO. 534/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH,
10/D, Shri Kunthunath Tower,
Next to Sargam Shopping Center, Gujarat-395007.
2. MR. YASH PRAJAPATI,
B-7, Amarpali Apartments,
Near Joggers Park, Manav Mndir Road,
GIDC, Ankleshwar, District Baruch, Gujarat-393002.
3. MS. KARISHMA JAIN,
A-1/11, First Floor,
Sector 60, Rohini. Delhi- 85.
(Through: Mr. Nitish Banka, Advocate)
...Appellants
VERSUS
1. INLEAD,
Through Manager/Managing Director,
81P, Sector 34, National Expressway-8,
Gurgaon-122001.
2. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,
Through Manager/Managing Director,
B-1/576, Janak Puri, New Delhi
(Through: Mr. Hemant Gupta & Associates)
... For Respondent No.1 & 2
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 8
FA NO./534/2016 D.O.D.:06.10.2022
MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH & ORS. VS. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
3. MEWAR UNIVERSITY,
Through Chairperson/Dean,
NH-79, Gangrar, Chitorgarh, Rajashthan-312901.
(Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate)
... For Respondent No. 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the Parties.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"Briefly the case of the complainants is that they enrolled them in degree/diploma programs with Opposite Parties under PGRI Scheme. The complainants No. 1,2 & 3 took admission in MBA International Business Management (credit transfer), MBA Business Management (two years) and PGDM Health Care Administration respectively by paying requisite fee to the Opposite Parties. The complainants were given enrollment numbers allotted by Mewar University. The complainants came to know that the Opposite Parties are not recognized by UGC and Mewar University, therefore, the Opposite Party-3 cannot grant degrees and diplomas. The complainants pressed the Opposite Parties to give clarification on the legal sanctity of degrees and diplomas issued by them. But the Opposite Parties failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainants. The degrees/diplomas given by the Opposite Parties do not have necessary approval from UGC. The Opposite Parties used unfair trade practices and with deceptive strategies to enrol the students. Hence, the present DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 8 FA NO./534/2016 D.O.D.:06.10.2022 MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH & ORS. VS. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
complaint for directions to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.60,30,000/-. The fee received by the Opposite Parties along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of studies, career opportunities and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.1,00,000/- litigation expenses."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 26.10.2016, whereby it held as under:
"We heard the counsel for Opposite Parties only and have gone through the material placed on record. We are of the opinion that the main controversy/issue "whether complainants are consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and Opposite Parties are service providers"?
These issues have been dealt in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS SURJEET KAUR 2010 (11) Supreme Court Cases 159. Wherein it is held that education is not a commodity. The educational institutions are not service providers. Therefore, the students are not consumers. Similar view is taken by another bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in special leave petition no. 22532/12 titled P.T. KOSHY & AN VS ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS decided on 9.8.12. Similar view is taken by Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition no 1684/2009 titled as REGISTRAR ‚GGS INDERAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS MISS TANVI decided on 29.1.2015 in Revision Petition No 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari vs Fitjee decided on 8.12.14, in Revision Petition No 3365/2006 titled FIITJEE VS DR.(MRS) MINATHI RATH, Revision Petition No 1805/2007 titled FITJEE VS B.B. POPLI, Revision Petition P.T. Education vs Dr MINATHI and in Revision Petition No 2660/2007 all decided on 14.11.11 by common order. Similar view is also taken by Hon'ble State DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 8 FA NO./534/2016 D.O.D.:06.10.2022 MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH & ORS. VS. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Commission Chandigarh in Appeal no 244/2014 titled M/s fitjee Ltd vs Mayank Tiwari decided on 23.9.14.
Similar are the facts of the present complaint. The complainants took admission with opposite parties' educational Institutions for pursuing MBA and PG DM Courses on payment of requisite fee. The opposite parties are imparting education. Therefore, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble state Commission of Chandigarh time and again education is not a commodity and the opposite parties are not service providers and the complainants are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Therefore, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act-1986. Resultantly the complaint is dismissed."
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgement, the Appellants/Complainants have preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that they are 'Consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Appellants further contended that the District Commission has erroneously dismissed their complaint. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment of the District Commission.
4. The Respondents, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that Respondents/Opposite Parties are educational institutions and thus, the Appellants being students cannot be termed as "Consumer" in accordance with Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. We have perused the materials available on record and heard the counsel appeared on behalf of both the parties.
6. The main question for consideration before us is whether the Appellants are 'Consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 8 FA NO./534/2016 D.O.D.:06.10.2022 MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH & ORS. VS. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
whether the service provide by the educational institutions will come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. In order to check the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission with respect to the Education Institutions, we deem it appropriate to refer to the catena of judgments wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission, while adjudicating the aforementioned issue has already settled the law with respect to whether education being imparted by the institutions is covered within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not.
8. Firstly, we deem it appropriate to refer to the case titled 'Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur' reported at (2010) 11 SCC 159, 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 matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532/2012 titled as '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 DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 8 FA NO./534/2016 D.O.D.:06.10.2022 MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH & ORS. VS. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
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."
10. 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 dicta, 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 DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 8 FA NO./534/2016 D.O.D.:06.10.2022 MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH & ORS. VS. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Petition No. 807/2017 are not in accordance with the decision of this Court and are therefore set aside. The civil appeals are allowed."
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.
13. Infact, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reasons to interfere in the findings of the District Commission. Therefore, we uphold the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, West, New Delhi-110058.
14. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 8 FA NO./534/2016 D.O.D.:06.10.2022
MR. KARNAV SUNIL KUMAR SHAH & ORS. VS. PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
15. 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.
16. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Judgment.
17. 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.
18. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
06.10.2022 DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 8