State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Correspondent, Mount Giris Metric ... vs M.Raman,Karur Dist. & Another on 21 August, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.86/2019
(Against the order made in C.C.No.11/2016 dated 31.10.2018 on the file of
the District Commission, Karur.)
MONDAY, THE 21th DAY OF AUGUST 2023
The Correspondent,
Mount Girls Metric Higher Secondary School,
Ayyarmalai Post, Kulithalai Circle,
Kulithalai Circle,
Karur District. Appellant/1 st Opposite Party
-Vs-
1. M.Raman,
S/o K.T.Meyyappan,
14/7A, Middle Seaniar Street,
Thogamalai Post,
Kulithalai Taluk,
Karur District - 621 313. 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
District Collector Campus,
Karur - 630 007. 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party-1 : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-1/Opposite Party-1 : Mr.V.Alageshkumar, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-2/Opposite Party-2 : Given-up.
This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 08.08.2023 and upon
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:
2
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The complainant admitted his son one R.S.Alageswaran studying 7th standard in the first opposite party Matriculation School. The first opposite party demanded Rs.19,500/- towards fees. The complainant paid only Rs.10,000/-. As per the one man Commission of Hon'ble Justice S.R.Singaravelu, the excess amount was received towards educational fee is to be refunded to the complainant but the first opposite party did not refund the excess amount. So alleging deficiency in service, the complaint is filed against the opposite parties claiming Rs.5000/- towards refund of excess amount with interest at the rate of 12% and Rs.15,000/- towards the amount spent for one man Commission enquiry and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and also Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. The opposite parties in the written version have admitted the receipt of Rs.10,000/-. They further admitted that as per order of one man Commission the Hon'ble Justice S.R.Singaravelu, they are ready to refund of Rs.5000/- but it was not received by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The District Commission after perusal of records and Exhibits A1 to A9 and Exhibits B1 to B8, finally, ordered the first opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- towards excess amount collected from the complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization and also to pay Rs.3000/- as cost to the complainant, and the complaint was dismissed as against the second opposite party. 3
4. Aggrieved with the above order, this appeal has been preferred by the 1st opposite party on the following:
Grounds: That, the order of the District Commission is against law and providing education is not a service as defined u/s 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act Replaced with Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and hence they prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the District Commission order.
5. When the matter was posted for filing written arguments of appellant and R1. The appellant/1st opposite party and Respondent-1/complainant did not file any written arguments. On 08.08.2023 appellant/1st opposite party alone present. No representation for Respondent-1/complainant.
6. Since it is the case of the complainant that, the first opposite party received excess amount for educational fee than fixed. This consumer complaint since, the matter is involved in providing education as well as Educational Institution this matter is taken up for hearing only decide its maintainability and to pass an appropriate order.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Educational Institutions are the service provider or not?
8. Discussion on the Point: The Consumer Fora had powers to deal with only certain kind of matters. Particularly, if there is any deficiency in service by a service provider. Here, the complaint has been made against the Educational Institution. The Educational Institutions whether covered under this Act has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as well as the National Commission. 4
9. Recently, the Hon'ble National Commission passed a detailed order in the case of C.Deepak Tyagi & 14 Others -Vs- Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... on 20 January, 2020 after consolidating many cases in this regard. It addressed many issues and answered them in detail. Finally it concluded that the Educational Institutions are not service provider and imparting education is not a service and the Commission did not have requisite jurisdiction to deal with the matter relating to Educational Insitutions in the following words:
"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".
And this is the prevailing settled law and is now binding upon this commission. So, the opposite parties which are rendering education through their college is not a service provider and as such the complaint is not maintainable as against them as the complainant is not a consumer complaint. Therefore the order of the District Commission is liable to be set aside and the complaint is to be dismissed as not maintainable by allowing the appeal and the point is answered accordingly.
5
10. In the result, (1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The order passed by the Learned District Commission, Karur, made in C.C.No.11/2016, dated 31.10.2018 is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
(3) No order as to costs in this appeal.
(4) The Registry is directed to refund the mandatory deposit to
the appellant/1st opposite party with accrued interest thereon duly discharged in favour of the appellant/1st opposite party. Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 21th day of August 2023.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
6Corrected