State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Guru Harkishan Girls College vs Amandeep Kaur on 20 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 309 of 2011
Date of institution : 14.02.2011
Date of decision : 20.12.2013
Guru Harkishan Girls College, Phallewal Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotla,
District Sangrur, through its Principal.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party
Versus
Amandeep Kaur d/o Avtar Singh r/o Guru Nanak Nagar, Ward No.1,
Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, Punjab.
......Respondent-Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
29.12.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondent : None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Amandeep Kaur, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund the sum of Rs.28,700/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% First Appeal No.309 of 2011. 2 per annum from 8.7.2010 till realization and to pay Rs.5,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.
2. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant hired the services of the opposite party, who is running Educational Institute/College, by getting admission in BBA degree course Session 2009-2012. She deposited a total sum of Rs.28,700/- towards School and College fees; the details of which are given in para no.2 of the complaint. In addition to that, she deposited Rs.2,000/- as transport charges. As per the Central Government notification dated 24.2.2004 and the letter dated 9.9.2004 of Director, Welfare, Punjab, the Government has waived of the school fee and college fee of post matriculate students, who belong to Scheduled Caste category. She belongs to that category and the income of her family is less than Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and, as such, she is covered under the said notification and the letter. It was in violation of the notification that the opposite party charged the above said fee of Rs.28,700/- without any reason. She submitted an application dated 13.7.2010 through her father to avail of the benefit of post matriculation scholarship and along with that application she submitted the Scheduled Caste certificate and the affidavit of her father regarding income and requested the opposite party for reimbursement of the fee already deposited by her and not to charge the same in future but it refused to pay any heed to her request. As per said notification, the opposite party can claim the reimbursement of the fee from the Director, Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh. This non-action of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on First Appeal No.309 of 2011. 3 its part, which caused mental torture, tension, pain, agony and harassment to her and for the same she is entitled to Rs.20,000/- as compensation; besides the refund of Rs.28,700/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. She prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party.
3. In the reply filed by the opposite party, it admitted that the complainant obtained admission in the BBA degree course for the Session 2009-2012. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it pleaded that the complainant herself had deposited the amounts, as mentioned in the complaint, for getting education and the transport facility. The notification so issued by the Central Government was never brought to its notice and the complainant had not applied for admission in the said category and, as such, is not entitled to the benefits under that notification. She never disclosed at the time of her admission that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and is entitled to the benefits under the notification. The College being run is a non-aided College and no aid is being given by the Government. The complainant has not come to the District Forum with clean hands and, in fact, wants to tarnish the image/reputation of the Institute by filing false complaint. She is not a 'consumer' under the Act and the complaint is not maintainable.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the First Appeal No.309 of 2011. 4 same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. None appeared before us at the time of arguments. We have carefully gone through the records of the District Forum.
6. The complainant herself has averred that the opposite party is an Educational Institute. The opposite party has taken up the plea that she is not a 'consumer' as defined under the Act. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 held that the educational institutions are not service providers. The operative part of that judgment is reproduced below:-
"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."
7. In view of that proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be held that the complainant is a First Appeal No.309 of 2011. 5 'consumer' of the opposite party and, as such, the complaint filed by her was not maintainable.
8. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
9. The sum of Rs.18,396/- 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/opposite party by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) December 20, 2013 MEMBER Bansal