State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lovely Professional University vs Manhar Singh Kang on 10 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1566 of 2010
Date of institution : 06.09.2010
Date of decision : 10.10.2013
1. Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar-Ludhiana G.T. Road,
near Cheharu Railway Bridge, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
2. School of Hospitality C/o Lovely Professional University,
Jalandhar-Ludhiana G.T. Road, near Cheharu Railway Bridge,
Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
.......Appellants- Opposite Parties
Versus
1. Manhar Singh Kang son of Shri Manjit Singh Kang, resident of
City Park, Shankerpur West, Durgapur-713 206 (West Bengal).
2. Shri Manjit Singh Kang S/o Shri Harinder Singh Kang, resident
of City Park, Shankerpur West, Durgapur-713 206 (West
Bengal).
......Respondents-Complainants
First Appeal against the order dated
29.7.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate. For the respondent s: Shri Vinay Kataria, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellants/opposite parties have preferred the present appeal against the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by District First Appeal No.1566 of 2010. 2 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund the sum of Rs.36,000/- from the admission fee, after deducting Rs.2,500/- on account of processing and handling fee and Rs.1,000/- as processing fee, as mentioned in the instructions issued by the University Grants Commission and to refund the sum of Rs.46,500/-, out of Rs.49,000/- deposited by the complainants as hostel charges, after deducting therefrom Rs.2,500/-, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 30.9.2009 and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The facts, to be taken notice of for the decision of the present appeal, are that complainant no.1 took admission in B.Sc. (Hotel Management) Course for the Session starting year 2009-2010 on payment of Rs.39,500/- for the first semester, vide receipt dated 3.9.2009. He also availed of the hostel facility of the opposite parties and deposited Rs.49,000/-, vide receipt dated 3.9.2009. He joined the Institute on 8.9.2009 and found that the facilities and set-up of the Campus was not as per the commitments and advertisement issued by the opposite parties. Accordingly he surrendered the seat and left the Institute and made a request for the refund of the fee and the hostel charges so deposited by him, vide letter dated 9.3.2009. The opposite parties took up the preliminary objection that as per the settled law disputes relating to refund of fees, conduct of examination, declaration of result etc. by the University, College or First Appeal No.1566 of 2010. 3 Institution do not come within the ambit of consumer dispute and, as such, is not maintainable.
3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
4. In view of the preliminary objection taken up by the opposite parties the foremost question to be decided is, whether the dispute raised by the complainants fall within the ambit of the Act? This matter is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha [IV(2009) CPJ 34 (SC)] held that Education Boards and Universities are not 'Service Providers' and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Act. For that finding, the detailed reasoning was given in the judgment. However, in that case the question was whether the Board or University becomes a Service Provider while holding the examinations, evaluating the answering scripts, declaring the result and issuing certificates? It was held therein that while doing so in discharge of its statutory function the University or the School Examination Board does not offer its services to any candidate and the process is not the availment of a service by a student but is a participation in a general examination so conducted to ascertain whether he is eligible or fit for consideration as having successfully completed the particular course. The 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. It was also held therein that a student who takes an examination is not a consumer and consequently the complaint under the Act will not be First Appeal No.1566 of 2010. 4 maintainable against the Board of the University. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [2010 CTJ 985 (Supreme Court) (CP)] upheld that proposition of law.
5. The same question is involved in SLP No.13472 of 2012 (Chairman, Desh Bhagat Dental College & Ors. v. Archita Vedi). In view of the pendency of that SLP, this appeal was being adjourned for awaiting the orders. In the meanwhile, there was another pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9.8.2012 in SLP (Civil) No.22532 of 2012 (P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.), which has been reported in 2012(3) CPC 615. The view expressed in Maharshi Dayanand University's case (supra) was again endorsed and the following short order was passed:-
"1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159 = 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C. 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. In view of this consistent and the latest view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is to be concluded that the appellants/opposite parties, being a University, are not Service Providers and, as such, First Appeal No.1566 of 2010. 5 the complaint filed against them is not entertainable by the Consumer Foras under the Act.
7. In the result, the appeal is accepted, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed.
8. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/opposite parties by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
9. The arguments in this case were heard on 4.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) October 10, 2013 MEMBER Bansal