National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gagan Kumar vs Gaurav Bajaj & 14 Ors. on 9 May, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 553 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 10/10/2017 in Appeal No. 763/2014 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. GAGAN KUMAR MILE TOWERS S.NO. 14, THITE NAGAR, KHARADI, PUNE-411014 MAHARAHSTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GAURAV BAJAJ & 14 ORS. S/O. VED BAJAJ, R/O. BEAUTY POINT, PATOTA B ROAD, LAL MAIDAN, JODHPUR-342001 RAJASTHAN 2. MR. NIKHIL CHORDIA S/O. HARISH CHORDIA, 36, ARIHANT SAMRAT NAGAR DHULE-424001 3. MS. NEELIMA JAIN D/O. PRABHAS JAIN, R/O. 13/244, 37, SADAR MARKET, PAVAIYA STREET BEHIND MADHYA PRADESH-477001 4. MS. PREETI CHANDAK, D/O. RAJENDRA CHANDAK, HOUSE NO. 15, KHADE BAZAR, SHAHPUR, BELGAUM-590003 KARNATAKA 5. MS. TANVI THAKARE D/O. GHANSHYAM THAKARE, SANKALP APARTMENT TENTLINE, SOMA COMPOUND NAGPUR MAHARAHSTRA 6. SH. VARUN MEHTA S/O. AMAR MEHTA, HOUSE NO. 968, OPP. MANNULAL HOSPITAL DIXITPURA, JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH-482002 7. MR. ANKIT JAIN S/O. ANIL JAIN, C/O. ANUPARAN SAREE KENDRA GOREGAON, DISTRICT NARSINGPUR MADHYA PRADESH-487118 8. MR. ANIL CHAUHAN R/O. A/503, OAKWOOD SOCIETY, SYMBIOSYS ROAD, BEHIND CAFE COFFEE DAY VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE-411014 MAHARAHSTRA 9. MUENCHEM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ASHOK PLAZA S.NO. 32/2, NAGAR ROAD, PUNE-411014 MAHARAHSTRA 10. MUENCHEN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, ASHOK PLAZA, S.NO. 32/2, NAGAR ROAD, PUNE-411014 MAHARAHSTRA 11. TILAK MAHARASHTRA VIDYAPEETH OPEN UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE AT VEER SAVARKAR NAGAR, MUKUND NAGAR, PUNE-411037 MAHARAHSTRA 12. PROF. D.D. KADAM, C/O. SHRI BALAJI SOCIETY, SURVEY NO. 55/2-7, VILLAGE TATHAWADE, OFF MUMBAI BANGALORE BYPASS PUNE-411033 MAHARAHSTRA 13. SHRI JAYDEEP SINGH PARMAR, 38W, 2ND FLOOR, APEEJAY HOUSE, 3, DINSHAW VACHA ROAD, CHURCHAGE, MUMBAI-400020 MAHARAHSTRA 14. SHRI SAMEER KAPOOR, MILE TOWERS S.NO. 14, THITE NAGAR, KHARADI, PUNE-411014 MAHARAHSTRA 15. KUNAL KAPOOR MILE TOWERS S.NO. 14, THITE NAGAR, KHARADI, PUNE-411014 MAHARAHSTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Barathi, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae alongwith
Mr. Manish Kr. Singh, Advocate
Dated : 09 May 2019 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainants/respondents took admission in PGPM and MBA Programme of Muenchen International Business School which is stated to be run by Muenchen Education Society. As per the prospectus issued by the School, International Corporate Study Programme was to be a part of their curriculum and they were to be taken to Germany for a tour of 35 days duration, after which certificate of having successfully passed International Corporate Study Programme was to be given to them. The case of the complainants is that International Corporate Study Programme (ICSP) was not conducted by the petitioner despite they having charged fee of Rs.1,20,000/- per year, the total amount charged from them being Rs.2,40,000/- for two years. Out of it, Rs.22,000/- are stated to have been returned to some of them. This is also their case that though they were promised campus placement, no company came to their campus for campus interviews. This is also their case that MBA degrees were not awarded to them and neither the hostel deposit nor the caution money were refunded to them. Alleging deficiencies in the educational services provided to them by the petitioners, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of a composite Consumer Complaint seeking refund of the fee etc. paid by them to the petitioners alongwith compensation.
2. The complaint was contested only by Professor D.S. Kadam which was OP No.5 in the complaint and a Director of the School. He claimed that the School was a trust and he had resigned from the School in September 2010.
3. The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. The said appeals having been dismissed, they are before this Commission by way of these Revision Petitions.
4. It would be seen from the case set out in the Consumer Complaint that the primary grievance of the complainants is in respect of the education related matters such matters being ICSP, campus placement and MBA degrees. The question as to whether such matters come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and whether a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in relation to such matters can be maintained or not has come up for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions including Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483; Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159 and P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. SLP (C) No.22532 of 2012 decided on 09.08.2012.
5. The decision of this Commission in Bihar School Examination Board (supra), to the extent it is referred in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), reads as under:
"11. The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative.
12. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its services" to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-a-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination 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.
13. The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intend to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer- scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a `service provider' and a student who takes an examination is not a `consumer' and consequently, complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board." (Emphasis added) In P.T. Koshy & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia held as under:
In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 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.
6. It would thus be seen that in a matter alleging deficiencies in the education imparted to the students, a Consumer Forum would not be an appropriate forum and the remedy available to the aggrieved person would be to approach a Civil Court for the redressal of his grievances. The fora below therefore, were not justified in entertaining the Consumer Complaint and allowing the same on merits. The impugned orders are therefore, set aside and the complaints are consequently dismissed with liberty to the complainants to avail such remedy as may be available to them in law. Such remedy would include approaching a Civil Court for the redressal of their grievances. If they decide to approach a Civil Court for the redressal of their grievances, they would also be entitled to seek benefit of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER