Supreme Court - Daily Orders
P. Sreenivasulu vs P.J. Alexander on 9 September, 2015
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, S.A. Bobde
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7003-7004 OF 2015
(Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2523-2524/2003)
P. SREENIVASULU & Anr. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
P.J. ALEXANDER & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite service.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
A dispute was raised by the appellants with regard to deficiency in service by the college run by the respondent Educational Foundation.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short 'the National Commission') was of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in The Registrar, University of Madras & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1995 Writ L.R.246], the complaint before the State Commission was not maintainable. The attention of the National Commission was also drawn to a judgment delivered by the National Commission itself in Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. v. Vishwa Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Meenakshi Kohli Buddha Parishad & Ors. [2000 CTJ 801 (CP)] in which it Date: 2015.09.12 07:01:40 IST Reason: is held that a deficiency by an Educational Institute would come within the scope of the Consumer Protection 1 Act, 1986.
The National Commission preferred to rely on the decision of the Madras High Court rather than its earlier decision rendered in Bhupesh Khurana (supra).
It has been brought to our notice that an appeal was filed against the order of the National Commission in Bhupesh Khurana and the decision in the appeal is reported as Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 473]. The view expressed by the National Commission was upheld by this Court in the aforesaid decision.
Under the circumstances, an educational institution would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the decision rendered by the Madras High Court would no longer be good law. Under the circumstances, we hold that the complaint filed before the State Commission was maintainable.
Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order dated 12.09.2002 passed by the National Commission and remand the matter to the State Commission for its decision on merits.
The civil appeals are allowed.
…....................J. [Madan B. Lokur] …....................J. [S.A. BOBDE] NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 2 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2523-2524/2003 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/09/2002 in FA No. 61/2002 and FA No. 89/2002 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) P. SREENIVASULU & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS P.J. ALEXANDER & ANR. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 09/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Indu Goswamy,Adv. (NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite service.
Leave granted.
The civil appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Meenakshi Kohli) (Jaswinder Kaur) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed Order is placed on the file] 3