State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman,Velammal College Of ... vs V.Balavignesh S/O .B. Viswanathan on 26 October, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present
Date of appeal filed: 06.08.2018
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.98/2018
FRIDAY, THE 26th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023
The Chairman,
Velammal College of Engineering and Technology,
Having office at Madurai-Rameswaram High Road,
Madurai - 625 009. Appellant/Opposite Party
-Vs-
V.Bala Vignesh,
S/o B.Viswanathan,
Door No.69, West Avani Moola Street,
Madurai - 625 001. Respondent/ Complainant
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party : Mr.S.Mariappamurali, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.G.Arumugam, Advocate.
Aggrieved by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Madurai, made in C.C.No.195/2011, dated 19.06.2018 the opposite
party preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on
20.09.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the
following:
2
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Open Court).
1. In view of the order proposed to be passed only the gist of the complaint alone narrated as follows:
The complaint was preferred against the educational institution claiming refund of capitation fee and tuition fee amount of Rs.2,02,800/- with interest and Rs.5,00,000/ towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also Rs.5000/ as costs of the proceedings.
2. The opposite party did not appear before the District Commission and the District Commission after perusal of complainant's records, marked as Exhibits A1 to A10, finally, partly allowed the complaint, directed the opposite party to refund of Rs.82,240/- (the fee collected from complainant after proportionate deduction) with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of complaint till its realization and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also to pay Rs.3000/- as costs to the complainant.
3. Aggrieved with the above order, the appeal has been preferred by the opposite party on the following:
Grounds: That, the order of the District Commission is erroneous in law. The complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable as per the Apex Court verdict. Hence they prayed to allow the appeal.
4. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the opposite party/educational institution is the service provider under the consumer Protection Act and the complaint is maintainable? 3
5. Discussion on the Point: Admittedly in this case the opposite party is an educational institution and they imparting education. Admittedly the complaint was filed seeking the refund of capitation fee and tuition fee paid to the opposite party/educational institution. At this juncture whether the imparting education is a service? and whether the opposite party/educational institution is a service provider are the question to be decided?.
6. Apart from that the educational institutions are not service providers. 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 Institutions. The Educational Institutions whether covered under this Act has been answered by the Apex Court and recently in National Commission orders.
7. Recently, the National Commission passed a detailed order in 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 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 4 Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".
8. And this is the prevailing settled law now and binding upon this commission. So, the opposite party who are rendering education through their college is not a service provider and as such the complaint is not maintainable as it is not a consumer complaint. The District Commission without ascertaining all those facts passed an award. So the order of the District Commission is liable to be set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Hence, the appeal is allowed, without cost and answered the point accordingly.
9. In the result, (1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The order passed by the District Commission, Madurai made in C.C.No.195/2011, dated 19.06.2018 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/opposite party with accrued interest thereon duly discharged in favour of the appellant/opposite party. Dictated and pronounced in the open court to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 26th day of October 2023.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
5Additional of Documents filed before this Commission on the side of the appellant/opposite party.
Ex.B1 04.02.2011 Attendance Register September-2010 & October-2010. Ex.B2 30.07.2010 Joint Declaration Letter.
Ex.B3 26.05.2011 No Dues Certificate.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
6