State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mexus Education Pvt.Ltd, Registered ... vs The Correspondent, Sri Savitri ... on 21 August, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.08/2020
(Against the order made in C.C.No.53/2018 dated 20.09.2018 on the file of
the District Commission, Thanjavur.)
MONDAY, THE 21th DAY OF AUGUST 2023
1. Mexus Education Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
At Survey No.153/2A, Muktanand Marg, Chala,
Vapi - Gujarat.
2. Mexus Education Private Limited,
612, Midas Sahar Plaza, J.B.Nagar,
Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 059,
India. Appellants/Opposite Parties
-Vs-
The Correspondent,
Sri Savitri Vidyalaya Matriculation School,
No.889, Parasuramar Street, Karanthai,
Thanjavur - 613 002,
Represented by the Principal of Sri Savitri
Vidhyalaya Matriculation School,
As the Power of Attorney. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellants-1&2/Opp.Parties-1&2 : Mr.V.Vinoth Balan, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Ms.R.Gomathi, Advocate.
Aggrieved over with the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Thanjavur in C.C.No.53/2018, dated 20.09.2018 the opposite
parties have preferred this appeal. This appeal was posted for filing written
2
arguments of respondent/complainant as last chance. On 08.08.2023 Appellants
present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. Hence, the
case is reserved to decide its maintainability issues and to pass an order and upon
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The complainant is a Matriculation School, they entered into an agreement with the opposite parties on 03.04.2012 and on 30.04.2012. As per the agreement the complainant is liable to pay Rs.8,10,000/- to the opposite parties and the opposite parties must provide Hardware and special Educational Software to the school. The complainant paid as much as Rs.2,02,500/- on various dates but the opposite parties did not provide Hardware as promised. They did not provide any technical support in providing Education. The complainant on the strength of agreement admitted students and collected Rs.1000/-each from 650 students. Because of the failure of the opposite parties to perform their obligation, the complainant is unable to answer the parents and so they sustained mental agony, financial loss and thereby the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is filed a consumer complaint claiming of Rs.18,02,500/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and cost of the proceedings.
2. The opposite parties did not appear before the District Commission and the District Commission after perusal of complainant's records Exhibits A1 to A10, finally, directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,02,500/- towards the amount collected from the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of 3 complaint till its realization and also to pay Rs.16,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and to pay Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant.
3. Aggrieved with the above order, the appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties on the following:
Grounds: That, the order of the District Commission is erroneous in law. As per the agreement the complainant is liable to pay Rs.4,86,000/- towards Hardware and Rs.3,24,000/- towards software. The complaint is not maintainable as already arbitration proceedings were initiated by the opposite parties. Hence, they prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the District Commission order.
4. It is the case of the complainant and in his complaint itself he alleged that they made an agreement with the opposite parties and as per the agreement the Hardware and Software are to be supplied by the opposite parties and it is their duty to provide special Education to the school students and teachers "in para 4 of the complaint" it has been clearly mentioned that from 10.10.2012, they had problems with the hardware components like speakers etc., and the visual display only was working without audio, proper coordination and the complainant could not get the access into the folders of the system and therefore whole education process was a failure. Again in the same para it is admitted that "the opposite parties sent kids materials to the school and it was not received in time and the opposite parties failed to perform the part of the contract which made the complainant and the students to suffer irreparable hardships". From these averments it can be easily 4 detected that the service offered by the opposite parties is a kind of imparting Education through Hardware and Software or through online process..
5. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Educational Institutions are the service provider under the consumer Protection Act or not?
6. Discussion on the Point: As per the case of the complainant the complainant utilized the service of the opposite parties to develop the learning skills of complainant's school students through software and hardware materials provided by the opposite parties. So, the opposite parties provided some kind of special Education to the children in the school. As such providing education be it vocational in nature will not come under the purview of service.
7. Apart from that, the complainant clearly admitted that it was utilizing the software and hardware materials to impart education and the school received fees of Rs.1000/- each from 650 students. So even if the service offered by the opposite parties is not education, the materials and goods provided by the opposite parties were used for commercial purpose by the complainant. So on this ground also the complainant is not entitled to file the complaint and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. The Consumer Fora had powers to detail with only certain kind of matters. Particularly, if there is any deficiency in service by a service provider. Here, the complaint has been made against the Educational Institution. The Educational Institutions whether covered under this Act has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and recently in Hon'ble National Commission orders. 5
9. Recently, the National Commission passed a detailed order in the case of C.Deepak Tyagi & 14 Others -Vs- Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... on 20 January, 2020. after consolidating many cases in this regard. It addressed many issues and answered them in detail. Finally it concluded that the Educational Institutions are not service provider and imparting Education is not a service and the Commission did not have requisite jurisdiction in the following words:
"In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".
And this is the prevailing settled law now and binding upon this commission . So, the opposite parties who are rendering education through their company is not a service provider and as such the complaint is not maintainable as it is not a consumer complaint. So the order of the District Commission is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.
10. The District Commission without ascertaining all those facts awarded and hence it is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is allowed, without cost and answered the point accordingly.
6
11 In the result,
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The order passed by the Learned District Commission,
Thanjavur made in C.C.No.53/2018, dated 20.09.2018 is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
(3) No order as to costs in this appeal.
(4) The Registry is directed to refund the mandatory deposit to
the appellants/opposite parties with accrued interest thereon duly discharged in favour of the appellants/opposite parties. Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 21th day of August 2023.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
7Corrected