State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Akanksha Mishra vs Director Ged Academy on 11 December, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2017/658
Instituted on : 04.09.2017
Akanksha Mishra, D/o Shri Shankar Mishra,
Aged 18 years,
R/o : S.K. Electronics Training Centre,
Shastri Nagar, Camp - 1,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) ..... Appellant (Complainant)
Vs.
Manager / Director, Gate Academy,
A-114-115, Smriti Nagar,
Bhilal, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondent (O.P.)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for the appellant (complainant).
Shri Anurag Thaker, Advocate for the respondent (O.P.).
ORDER
DATED : 11/December/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.07.2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. C.C./2017/217. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case of the complainant are that on 09.01.2017, the complainant went to the office of the O.P. where the O.P. received a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant in cash and registration was done. The complainant was assured that after some days on the basis of registration of the O.P. institution she will be informed and on depositing the remaining // 2 // amount of Rs.32,000/- the complainant will be given admission in the O.P. institution. The complainant was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.32,000/- before 27.01.2017. The complainant gave cheque dated 27.01.2017 of Rs.32,000/- of Yash Bank, Bhilai to the O.P. After getting admission in the institution of the O.P. when she went there, she came to know that the O.P. institution is not being operated, as assured to her. The complainant immediately gave oral information regarding the same to the Head of the Institution, who told the complainant that in their institution facility will be given to her and she can take coaching as per her choice. In the O.P. institution the standard of the coaching was sub-standard, whereas prior to admission and registration the O.P. told the complainant that high standard coaching will be given. The complainant suffered mental agony from the attitude of the O.P. institution. The complainant is not in a position to continue the coaching, therefore, she several times orally demanded to the O.P. to refund total amount of Rs.36,000/-, but the O.P. did not refund the above amount to the complainant. The act of the O.P. comes in the category of unfair trade practice. On 28.02.2017, the complainant sent registered notice to the O.P., which was received by the O.P. on 01.03.2017, thereafter the O.P. sent the reply of the notice and had taken false and baseless ground. The complainant only went to coaching for a week, whereas the O.P. said that the complainant came to coaching for two months. Inspite of receipt of notice, the O.P. did not refund the fee paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.36,000/-. Hence the complainant filed the instant consumer complaint and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the prayer clause of the complaint.
// 3 //
3. The O.P. filed its written statement and averred that in the complaint the age of the complainant is mentioned 18 years, which is dubious. At present, the complainant is below 18 years of age, therefore, she is not competent to file complaint before the Forum. The complainant has not filed any document to prove that she is above 18 years of age, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. The O.P. GATE Academy is an educational institution, where the students are preparing for various competitive examinations. The complainant is also a student of the O.P. institution. The relationship of the complainant and the O.P. is not of consumer and service provider. The Education does not come under service. The complainant does not come in the category of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint has been filed regarding for refund of the fees against the O.P., which is not maintainable. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4,000/- in cash and Rs.32,000/- through cheque. The O.P. institution is successfully running coaching for last 13 years in the name of Gate Academy and the O.P. institution is trying its level best to provide high standard coaching and guidance to the students who took admission in their institution. The O.P has appointed qualified persons, teachers and trainer. The director of the O.P. institution and teachers and trainers are providing high standard education and training. The O.P. institution is providing Study Material and All India Gate On Line Test Series, Centre Base On Line Mock Test facility to each students for which no separate fees is taken. At the time of taking admission in the O.P. institution, the interested students are provided information brochure in which all informations relating to the institution, syllabus, the details of the students who were selected earlier, important informations and enrollment form is // 4 // contained. Each students read the information available in the brochure and after understanding it and satisfying with the same, fill up enrollment form and deposit it with the institution and pay the fees. The complainant also obtained information brochure form the O.P. institution and the complainant was required to fill up the enrollment form, which was attached with brochure, and to submit it before the O.P. institution. The students who are interested to take admission in the O.P. institution are directed to take coaching for four days and if he is satisfied then only he is directed to deposit the fees. In back page of the enrollment form attached with information brochure, terms and conditions are mentioned, in which it is clearly mentioned that once fees is deposited in the O.P. institution, the same will not be refunded. Below the terms and conditions, the signatures of the students and their guardian is essential. The coaching for new batch in the coaching classes of the O.P. was started on 11.01.2017 and the complainant had deposited Rs.4,000/- on 09.01.2017 and was attending coaching classes The complainant attended the coaching classed for four days and decided to continue to attend the coaching classes. The O.P. told the complainant to deposit enrollment form and to pay fees. The complainant was satisfied with the standard of the coaching and she came to the O.P. institution and deposited the fees on 27.01.2017. At the time of depositing fees, the employee of the O.P. institution demanded enrollment form, then the complainant malafidely gave false information that at present her parents had gone outside for urgent work and the complainant assured the O.P. institution that she will deposit the enrollment form when her parents will return from outside. The O.P. believed the version of the complainant and allowed her to continue the coaching. The complainant did not fill up the enrollment form and // 5 // did not deposit the same, which shows malafide intention of the complainant. The complainant did not orally demand for refund of fees from the director of the O.P. institution or the employee of the O.P. institution. The complainant herself without any valid reason stopped to come to the O.P. institution. The complainant sent notice through her counsel to the O.P. on false and frivolous ground and demanded to refund the fees. The O.P. sent reply to the notice through its advocate. The O.P. institution did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Along with complainant other students have also taken admission in the O.P. institution and till date they are taking coaching in the O.P. institution. The complainant took admission in O.P. institution with malafide intention and she deliberately did not fill up enrollment form and did not deposit the same. The complainant took coaching for near about two months in the O.P. institutions and giving false information to the advocate sent notice to the O.P. Prior to sending notice through advocate, the complainant did not make any complaint to the Director of the O.P. or to the employee /teacher of the O.P. and did not demand refund of the fees. If the complainant did not want to continue the coaching in the O.P. institution, then she would personally meet to the O.P. and inform the same to the O./P., but making false allegation she sent notice through advocate to the O.P. in the year 2016, Rohit Agrawal, Arti Gupta Vivek Kumar, Shrikant Dubey and Ariandam Poddar obtained respectively 9, 13, 29, 53 and 71 rank in all India rank in Gate and I.E.S. Examination. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
// 6 //
4. The complainant has filed documents. Document Annexure A-1 is registration receipt, Annexure A-2 is Statement of Account in respect of Cheque No.852676, Annexure A-3 is Message dated 20.01.2017 at the time of depositing fee, Annexure A-4 is Message dated 28.01.2017 at the time of receiving fees, Annexure A-5 is registered notice dated 28.02.2017, Annexure A-6 is reply of the notice, dated 21.03.2017, Annexure A-7 is postal receipt, Annexure A-8 is acknowledgement for receipt of notice, Annexure A-9 is Birth Certificate of Ku. Akanksha Mishra.
5. The O.P. has also filed documents. Annexure NA-1 is registered notice dated 28.02.2017 sent by Shri Prabhat Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the complainant to the O.P., Annexure NA-2 is envelope of registered notice dated 28.02.2017, Annexure NA-3 is reply dated 20.03.2017 sent by Shri Anurag Thaker, Advocate to Shri Prabhat Gupta, Advocate, Annexure NA-4 are postal receipts, Annexure NA-5 is Information 2017-18 of Gate Academy, Annexure NA-5 is M.Tech Certificate of Shishir Kumar Das for the year 2013-14, Annexure NA-6 is M. Tech Certificate of Chaithanya for the year 2015-16, Annexure NA-7 is M. Tech Certificate of Mr. Kartika for the year 2015-16, Annexure NA-8 is M.Tech Certificate of Mr. Saket Verma for the year 2010-11, Annexure NA-9 is B.E. Certificate of Shakshi Khichriya for the year 2008-09, Annexure NA-10 is M. Tech Certificate of Gurupal Singh.
6. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties has dismissed the complaint.
// 7 //
7. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and sought permission to file at the appellate stage as evidence copy of Statement of Marks and Grades for the first Semester & second Semester of the complainant (A-1),Marks Statement for the Senior School Certificate Examination, 2015 of the complainant (A-2), Grade Sheet Cum Certificate of Performance for Secondary School Examination Session 2011-2013, etc. A-3), Annexure A-4 is Report Book Class IX - Session 2011-12 of the complainant, Annexure A-5 is Certificate of Participation, issued by National Science Olympiad to the complainant., Certificate issued by Pt. Ravishankar Shukla in favour of the complainant.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the application filed by the appellant (complainant) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and have also perused documents sought to be filed by the appellant (complainant) at the appellate stage as evidence.
9. So far as the said documents are concerned, the appellant (complainant) had ample opportunity to file above documents before the District Forum. The appellant (complainant) could not file the above documents before the District Forum inspite of the fact that the documents were in her possession. The appellant (complainant) has not properly and sufficiently explained that in which circumstances she could not file the above documents before the District Forum, therefore, the appellant (complainant) cannot be permitted to file the above documents as additional evidence at the appellate stage for fulfilling lacuna of her case.
// 8 //
10. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant (complainant) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC , is hereby dismissed.
11. So far as merits of the case is concerned, Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that on 09.01.2017, the appellant (complainant) went to the office of the respondent (O.P.) for taking admission in the coaching institute and she paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- in cash for registration. The respondent (O.P.) assured the appellant (complainant) that she will be informed and on depositing remaining amount of Rs.32,000/-, the appellant (complainant) will be given admission in the respondent (O.P.) institution. The appellant (complainant) deposited a sum of Rs.32,000/- on 27.01.2017 through cheque and got admission. When the appellant (complainant) went to the respondent (O.P.) institution for study, then she found that the facility provided by the respondent (O.P.) institution is not upto mark and coaching is not given as per appellant's (complainant's) choice. The Head of the respondent (O.P.) told that coaching is not going as per her choice to the appellant (complainant). Quality of coaching is of sub- standard, then the appellant (complainant) demanded the respondent (O.P.) to refund the fees deposited by her, but the respondent (O.P.) did not refund the amount, which comes in the category of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The appellant (complainant) sent legal notice to the respondent (O.P.) even then fees was not refunded by the respondent (O.P.) to the appellant (complainant). Then, the appellant (complainant) filed instant complaint before the District Forum. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is erroneous. The appellant (complainant) is entitled for refund of fees from the // 9 // respondent (O.P.), therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, may be set aside.
12. Shri Anurag Thaker, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that the standard of the coaching is upto mark and well qualified teachers have been appointed by the respondent (O.P.). The appellant (complainant) is student of the respondent (O.P.). The relationship of the appellant (complainant) and respondent (O.P.) is not of consumer and service provider. The education does not come under service, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable. The respondent (O.P.) is successfully running coaching for last 13 years in the name of Gate Academy and the respondent (O.P.) is trying its level best to provide high standard coaching and guidance to the students. The appellant (complainant) herself, after understanding the terms and conditions mentioned in the information took coaching for four days and deposited Rs.32,000/-, but she did not submit enrollment form. The complainant informed the respondent (O.P.) that her parents had gone outside for urgent work and assured the respondent (O.P.) that she will deposit the enrollment form when her parents will return from outside. The appellant (complainant) did not fill up the enrollment form and did not deposit the same with the respondent (O.P.) and all of sudden the appellant (complainant) herself stopped to come to the respondent (O.P.) Institution. In the Information , it is specifically mentioned that the fees is not refundable. After understanding the terms and conditions mentioned in the , // 10 // the appellant (complainant) deposited the fees and she started to take coaching in the respondent (O.P.) institution, therefore, she is not entitled for refund of the fees deposited by her. The appellant (complainant) made false allegations against the respondent (O.P.). The respondent (O.P.) did not commit any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed. Shri Anurag Thaker placed reliance on Appeal No.FA/2017/257 - Mansha Kotecha Vs. Smt. Ritu Jain and another, decided by this Commission vide order dated 29.08.2017; Appeal No.FA/2017/254 - Vikash Sahu Vs. Santosh Jain & another, decided by this Commission vide order dated 29.08.2017; Appeal No.FA/2017/252 - Duman Goyal Vs. Santosh Jain & Another, decided by this Commission vide order dated 01.09.2017, Appeal No.FA/2017/253 - Nikhat Parveen Vs. Santosh Jain & Another, decided by this Commission vide order dated 01.09.2017; Appeal No.FA/2017/255 - Utpal Sahu Vs. Santosh Jain and Another, decided by this Commission vide order dated 29.08.2017; Appeal No.FA/2017/256 - Deepak Sahu Vs. Santosh Jain & Another, decided by this Commission vide order dated 01.09.2017 and FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Sajjan Kumar Gupta, III (2014) CPJ 27 (NC).
13. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order.
14. According to the appellant (complainant), she went to the institution of the respondent (O.P.) and paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- for registration. After // 11 // getting registration she paid a sum of Rs.32,000/- to the respondent (O.P.) and started to join coaching classes. According to the appellant (complainant) coaching was not according to her choice and upto mark, but the appellant (complainant) has not filed any document to prove that the standard/status of the coaching was not upto mark. As against which, the respondent (O.P.) pleaded in the written statement that the director of the respondent (O.P.) institution Umesh Dhande is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Information Technology) and he is personally given training to the students. The names and degrees of the teachers/trainers, who are giving coaching are mentioned as Smt. Sakshi Dhande, Sujay Jasuja, Saket Verma, Shishir Das, Sandeep Chandrakar, Chetanya Reddy, Kartik, Shiva Agrawal and Saurabh Thakur. According to the respondent (O.P.) 9 teachers are giving training to the students in the respondent (O.P.) institution. Smt. Sakshi Dhande is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics & Telecommunication), Sujay Jasuja is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics & Telecommunication), Master of Technology, Saket Verma is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics & Telecommunication), Master of Technology, Shishir Das is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics & Telecommunication), Master of Technology, Sandeep Chandrakar is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical), Master of Technology, Chetanya Reddy is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil), Master of Technology, Kartik is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil), Master of Technology, Shiva Agrawal is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics and Telecommunication), Master of Technology, Saurabh Thakur is having degree of Bachelor of Engineering // 12 // (Electronics and Communication) and is Director - M.B.A. Trainer (Faculty). It appears that all the above teachers / trainers are possessing requisite degree & diploma.
15. The respondent (O.P.) further pleaded that in the year 2016, Rohit Agrawal, Arti Gupta Vivek Kumar, Shrikant Dubey and Ariandam Poddar obtained respectively 9, 13, 29, 53 and 71 rank in all India rank in Gate and I.E.S. Examination. The respondent (O.P.) filed Information (Annexure NA-5) in which names of the successful students are mentioned. In Terms and Condition No.2 of the Information , it is specifically mentioned that "Fee must be submitted, on or before the given time of period/duration. Fee will not be refunded in any type of conditions." Looking to the pleadings of the respondent (O.P.), it is established that after understanding the terms and conditions mentioned in the Information , the appellant (complainant) deposited the fees with the respondent (O.P.) and she started to take coaching for near about 13 days, thereafter all of a sudden, she herself stopped to come in the respondent (O.P.) institution.
16. The appellant (complainant) has pleaded that the coaching was not given to her as per her choice. From perusal of the written statement of the respondent (O.P.), it appears that in the respondent (O.P.) near about 9 teachers are teaching, who are well qualified to teach the students, therefore, the allegation of the appellant (complainant) that coaching is not upto mark, is not acceptable.
17. Now we shall examine whether the appellant (complainant) is consumer ?
// 13 //
18. In Institute of Cooperative Management Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Shitanshu Ranjan, Anshul Saini, Anamika Singh, Nisha Aarif Faridi, III (2014) CPJ 120 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"9. We have perused the Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483, wherein it was held that statutory Board does not provide any service in the sense, the term is used in the Act and examinee is not a consumer.
It was held that Board is not a service provider. In para 11 of the said judgment, it was held as under :
"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".
10. The learned Counsel for petitioner has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532/2012, decided on 9.8.2012, wherein it was held as under :-
"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. 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.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave petition is dismissed."
// 14 //
13. In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.697 of 2014, titled Indian Institute of Bank & Finance (IIBF) v. Mukul Srivastava, dated 17.1.2014, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to the judgments reported in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha (supra), Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (supra) and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director Health Services, Haryana & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC) = 2013 (10) SCC 136 holding that the student, under such circumstances, is not a 'consumer'."
19. In Bihar School Examination Board & Ors. vs. Kundan Kumar & Anr., I (2015) CPJ 97 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties, so complaint was not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A. No.3911 of 2003 Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, VII (2009) SLT 109 = IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), in which it was observed as under:
"10. 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. 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 // 15 // successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-à-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.
11. 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 intended 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, not 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.
7. Aforesaid judgment makes it crystal clear that when Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge on its statutory functions involving holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates then there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and, as such, complaint was not maintainable before District Forum. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not place any citation of Hon'ble Apex Court contrary to aforesaid judgment and in such circumstances, revision petition is to be allowed."
// 16 //
20. In Appeal No. 602/2009 Dr. Prashant Babu Kharya Vs. Principal, Raipur Homeopathy Medical College, vide order dated 16.11.2009, this Commission has observed thus :-
"It is clear that in the facts of that case the education was imparted by the College or University and there was deficiency in it. In the facts of the present case, Homeopathy Medical College has got a separate identity, who collected fee for imparting education and performed its duty. University was having a separate identity and it simply conducted examination and awarded degrees as part of its statutory duty. As regards performance of statutory duty of University, it does not fall within the ambit of the word "service", as defined in Consumer Protection Act."
21. In Appeal No. FA/12/622 Umesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba & Another & Appeal No.FA/12/660 Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba and another, vide order dated 27.03.2015, this Commission, has observed thus :-
"15. In view of judgments referred above, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the education is not a service and does not fall within the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable since he is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
22. On the basis of above cited judgments, it is established that the respondent (O.P.) has not provided any service to the appellant (complainant), therefore, the respondent (complainant) does not come within purview of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum.
// 17 //
23. Even the appellant (complainant) has not been able to prove that the standard of the coaching of the respondent (O.P.) institution is sub-standard and not upto mark. The appellant (complainant) has not filed any document to prove that the respondent (O.P.) had not given proper training or education to the appellant (complainant). On the contrary, looking to the pleadings of the respondent (O.P.), it appears that so many students of the respondent (O.P.) institution got all India rank in Gate and I.E.S. Examination, which shows that the standard of the coaching of the respondent (O.P.) institution is satisfactory and upto mark.
24. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.07.2017, passed by learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
25. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
11 /12/2017 11 /12/2017 11 /12/2017