State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Jindal Daughter Of Shri Tarsem ... vs 1. The Chairman, Swami Vivekanand Group ... on 20 February, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 557 of 2012
Date of institution: 7.5.2012
Date of Decision:20.2.2014
Bharti Jindal Daughter of Shri Tarsem Chand Jindal, resident of House No.
2304, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh (U.T.)
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Chairman, Swami Vivekanand Group of Institutes, Ram
Nagar (Near Banur), District Patiala.
2. The Director, Swami Vivekanand Group of Institutes, Ram Nagar
(Near Banur), District Patiala.
.....Respondents/Opposite parties
Argued By:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Sh. Vikas Goyal, Advocate for
Sh. K.K. Goel, Advocate
First Appeal against the order dated 20.3.2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.611 dated 30.8.2011 vide which the complaint was allowed with the direction to the OPs to refund Rs. 3100/- i.e. Rs. FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2012 2 2000/- security fee + Rs. 1100/- Uniform Fee) within one month from the receipt of order and pay Rs. 4,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant approached respondent No. 1 for getting admission in I.T. Branch of the Ops and deposited Rs. 47,080/- vide receipt No. 2807 on 12.7.2010 and another fee of Rs. 16,000/- vide receipt No. 2816 on 14.7.2010. Due to family circumstances, the complainant did not join the institute and informed the Ops in this regard on 16.7.2010 and father of the complainant requested the Ops to refund the fee on 20.7.2010. Ops refunded only Rs. 16,000/- vide cheque No. 729466 dated 11.8.2010 but did not refund Rs. 47,080/- deposited on 12.7.2010 inspite of giving assurance. Complainant served legal notice dated 16.11.2010 as well as reminder in this regard but of no use. This act of the Ops is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, hence, the complaint with the prayer that the Ops be directed to refund Rs. 47,080/- as well as demanded compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Inspite of notice opposite parties did not appear before the learned District Forum and they were proceeded ex-parge before the District Forum.
4. The complainant tendered evidence in support of their contentions i.e. her affidavit Ex. C-1, affidavit of Tarsem Chand Jindal Ex. C-2, receipt dt. 12.7.10 Ex. C-3, receipt dated 14.1.2010 Ex. C-4, legal notice with postal receipt Ex. C-5, reminder of legal notice with postal receipt Ex. C-6.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2012 3
5. After going through the allegations in the complaint, evidence and documents brought on the record by the complainant, the learned District Forum vide impugned order partly allowed the complaint as stated above.
6. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal for acceptance of his prayer made in the complaint.
7. The complainant has filed the appeal that the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence placed on the record, which proves the deposit of the amount by the complainant and ignore the settled law that if the student did not attend the classes then the Ops are not entitled to keep/hold the fee of the student and prayed for acceptance of the prayer made in the complaint.
8. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that it is settled law that the education is not a commodity and that it is not carrying any commercial, professional or service oriented activities, therefore, the complainant/appellant does not come within the definition of the 'consumer'. To support this, he has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur", 2010(4) CPJ 19 (SC) wherein it was held that matter of admission, fees etc. cannot be a question of deficiency in service and barred to entertain the Consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha", 2010 (1) CLT FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2012 4 255 (SC) as well as "P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.", 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) that "the Education Boards & Universities are not 'Service Provider'.
9. These judgments have not been rebutted by the appellant. In case the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable, then he is not entitled to enhancement of any amount.
10. Since no appeal has been filed by the Ops, therefore, no order can be passed by this Commission with regard to the relief already allowed in favour of the complainant by the learned District Forum.
11. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 17.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member February 20, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram) as Member