National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The British School vs Poonam Awadh on 7 March, 2019
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1164 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 19/01/2018 in Appeal No. 09/2018 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. THE BRITISH SCHOOL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SH. RANJAN SETHI, SECTOR 44-B CHANDIGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. POONAM AWADH D/O. SH. RAM AWADH, R/O. H.NO. 1207, SECTOR 68 MOHALI PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ram Awadh, Father of the Respondent Dated : 07 Mar 2019 ORDER Mr. Ashish Upadhyay, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the instructions received, has made a statement that the Petitioner shall pay Rs.40,000/- to the Respondent if the Respondent approaches the Petitioner within a week. The statement is recorded. The Respondent or her authorised representative may approach the Petitioner for refund of Rs.40,000/- within a week.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the matter.
The order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been upheld. The submission of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is running an Educational School and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court taken, is not a 'Consumer' and does not come under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter as the Act for refund of the amount deposited by the Respondent herein.
We have dealt with this matter recently in Revision Petition No.2861/2013--M.J.P. Rohailkhand University & Anr. Vs. Ravindra Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. decided on 06.03.2019 and reiterated the principle that Educational Institutions including University does not render any service while providing education and taking fee. The same principle is applicable here also. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is reproduced below:
"This Commission in Rabindra Bharti University Vs. Jayati Roy Chowdhury & Ors., Revision Petition No.263 to 266 of 2017 dated 07.11.2017, placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012(3) CPC 615 (SC), Prof. K.K. Ramachadran Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4133 of 2013 decided on 29.04.2013 Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, wherein it was held that Education is not a Commodity and a student is not a 'Consumer'. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.T. Koshy (Supra) has held as follow:
"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."
No distinction was made between Administrative and Statutory functions in the subsequent judgments."
Having regard to the aforenoted principle, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view, that Education is not a Commodity and cannot be defined as 'Service', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) or (o) of the Act and hence this Revision Petition is allowed and the orders of both the Fora below are set aside and the Complaint is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Order dasti.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER