National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Fiitjee Ltd. & 2 Ors. vs Ram P. Sambhagi Wakharde on 4 February, 2019
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1301 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 18/02/2016 in Appeal No. 695/2014 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. FIITJEE LTD. & 2 ORS. 29-A, KALU SARAI, SARVPRIYA, VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110016 2. PRINCIPAL, M/S FIIJTEE LTD. HYDERABAD CENTRE, 5-9/14-B, SAIFABAD, SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE, NATIONAL ADMISSION DIVISION, THROUGH ITS A.R. SH. ASHISH KR. AGGARWAL, 1ST FLOOR, DLF, CYBERCITY, BUILDING NO. 10-C, DLF PHASE III, GURGAON-122002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAM P. SAMBHAGI WAKHARDE S/O SAMBHAGI WAKHARDE, R/O VAISHNAVI NAGAR, MELAGAON ROAD, TARODA, NANDED-431605 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Advocate and Mr. Dilip Kumar Arya, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep R. Tornekar, Advocate Dated : 04 Feb 2019 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders dated 18-02-2016 and 19-02-2014 in CC No.695 of 2014 and CC No.132 of 2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission'). The State Commission by the impugned orders directed the Petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.1,81,356/- along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with costs of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,77,373/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of claim till realization together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- respectively.
2. We may mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 and P.T. Koshy Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust 2012 (3)CPC 615 SC have held that the educational institutions, while imparting education to students do not render any service so as to fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable for refund of the balance amount if a student or the Complainant withdraws from the course after attending the same for some period.
3. However, on a suggestion made by us, showing magnanimity, the Petitioner had offered to give Rs.1,00,000/- as a lumpsum amount to each of the Complainant in the two cases. However, this shall not be treated as a precedent and shall not be made effective on other cases. We appreciate the gesture shown by the Petitioner. The amount be paid within four weeks. The order impugned is set aside.
4. The Revision Petitions stand disposed of.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER