State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indo Global College Of Engineering And ... vs Kuljeet Singh Brar on 6 November, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 742 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 29.05.2009
Date of Decision: 06.11.2013
Indo Global College of Engineering and Technology, Abhipur-
140109, Mohali District SAS Nagar, through its Principal.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party
VERSUS
Kuljeet Singh Brar son of Narain Singh, resident of Village Samalsar,
Tehsil and District Moga.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 8.5.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar
(Mohali).
Quorum:
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh.O.P.Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Arun Bansal, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 8.5.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by respondent/complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund an amount of Rs.64,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant with First Appeal No. 742 of 2009 Page 2 of 7 effect from 11.9.2008 till the date of payment. Litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- were also warded.
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant got admission with the opposite party in the Bachelor in Civil Engineering Course First Year in the Session 2008-09 after counselling, having earlier cleared the CET-2008 conducted by the Punjab Technical University (PTU) on 25.8.2008. He deposited admission fee and other charges to the tune of Rs.65,000/- on 25.8.2008 and 2.9.2008 vide three separate receipts No.5466, 5469 and 5525. Subsequently, the seats fell vacant in Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College and, as a result of counselling which was still in progress, he took admission in that college for BE (Electrical) Course of his choice and deposited the necessary fee in the said institute. Thereafter, he approached the opposite party and surrendered his seat and also made a request to it for the refund of fee on 11.9.2008. He was assured that the fee would be refunded within one week. He sent reminder dated 4.10.2008, but it failed to refund the fee. As per letter dated AICTE/Legal/04(01)/2007, issued by All India Council of Technical Education, Delhi, which is applicable to all Engineering Colleges, the opposite party was required to follow the said instructions and other circular and guidelines strictly for the refund of the fee. A legal notice dated 4.11.2008 was served, which was duly received but no reply was received. Hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum.
First Appeal No. 742 of 2009 Page 3 of 7
3. Upon notice, the opposite party filed written reply pleading therein that the complainant himself had not complied with the rules and regulations framed and the instruction issued by the AICTE to the technical institutions, universities, including deemed universities, imparting technical education regarding matters concerning charging of fee refund of fee and other students' related issues. The seat vacated by the complainant was not filled up and as per the norms set up by the AICTE, if the vacated seat is not filled up the fee cannot be refunded to the students. The complainant had not applied for surrender of the seat within the stipulated period. Thus, the tuition fee as well as the other charges was not refundable.
4. Both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint in the aforesaid terms.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party has come up in appeal on the ground that the District Forum has mis-interpreted the clause 8 (c) of the instructions laid down by the PTU (Ex.R-1). One of the conditions for the refund of the fee etc. is that the candidate should change his/her branch, college, university through centralised counselling conducted by PTU. Admittedly, the complainant got admission with the opposite party college through centralised counselling. His allegation that he got admission in the Ludhiana College when such counselling was going on is mis-leading and First Appeal No. 742 of 2009 Page 4 of 7 untrue. As per the counselling schedule given in the prospectus (Ex.R-10), first counselling was from 30.6.2008 to 25.7.2008 and the second counselling from 13.8.2008 to 22.8.2008. The complainant got selected for the opposite party college in the second counselling held on 20.8.2008. After second counselling there was no third counselling. Therefore, there could not be further counselling for him for the selection/adjustment in another college. The provision of para 8 (c) of Ex.R-1 would be applicable only if the complainant had been selected for Ludhiana College on the basis of centralised counselling. Rather he got admission in the Ludhiana College in the seat left vacant by the departure of such students independently of the counselling processing. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
8. The foremost question to be decided is, whether the dispute raised by the complainant falls within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act")? This matter is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board V/s Suresh Prasad Sinha [IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC)] held that Education Boards and Universities are not 'Service Providers' and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Act. For that finding, the detailed reasoning was given in the judgment. However, in that case the question was whether the Board or University becomes a Service Provider while holding the examinations, First Appeal No. 742 of 2009 Page 5 of 7 evaluating the answering scripts, declaring the result and issuing certificates? It was held therein that while doing so in discharge of its statutory function the University or the School Examination Board does not offer its services to any candidate and the process is not the availment of a service by a student but is a participation in a general examination so conducted to ascertain whether he is eligible or fit for consideration as having successfully completed the particular course. The fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination. It was also held therein that a student who takes an examination is not a consumer and consequently the complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board or the University. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University V/s Surjeet Kaur [2010 CTJ 985 (Supreme Court) (CP)] upheld that proposition of law.
9. The same question is involved in SLP No.13472 of 2012 (Chairman, Desh Bhagat Dental College & Ors. V/s Archita Vedi). In view of the pendency of that SLP, this appeal was being adjourned for awaiting the orders. In the meanwhile, there was another pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9.8.2012 in SLP (Civil) No.22532 of 2012 (P.T. Koshy & Anr. V/s Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.), which has been reported in 2012(3) CPC 615. The view expressed in Maharshi Dayanand University's case (supra) was again endorsed and the following short order was passed:-
First Appeal No. 742 of 2009 Page 6 of 7
"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 this consistent and the latest view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is to be concluded that the appellant/opposite party, being an educational institution, is not Service Provider and, as such, the complaint filed against it is not entertainable by the Consumer Foras under the Act.
11. In the result, the appeal is accepted, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
12. The appellant/opposite party deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the appellant/opposite party, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft, after expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
13. The arguments in the case were heard on 30.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No. 742 of 2009 Page 7 of 7
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) PRESIDING MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER November 06, 2013 VINAY