State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya vs Shivan Gupta on 5 September, 2022
Appeal No. 110 of Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya 05.09.2022
2019 Vs.
Shivam Gupta
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 23.09.2019
Date of final hearing: 02.09.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2022
First Appeal No. 110 / 2019
Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya Haridwar
Through its Registrar Sh. Dinesh Chand Bhatt
(Through: Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Sh. Shivam Gupta S/o Late Sh. Sanjeev Gupta
R/o 39/C, Chandreshwar Nagar, Mayakund
Rishikesh, District Dehradun
(None for Respondent)
..... .Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 498 of 2016 styled as Sh. Shivam Gupta vs. Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the appellant to pay the complainant - respondent a sum of Rs. 68,800/- towards refund of fees alongwith interest @ 6% per annum 1 Appeal No. 110 of Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya 05.09.2022 2019 Vs. Shivam Gupta from the date of filing of complaint till payment and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in hand, in brief, are as such that the complainant has took admission in B. Tech, Ist Year on 09.08.2016 through counselling and paid Rs. 67,800/- as yearly fees with Rs. 2,000/- as security money; meanwhile, the complainant was given admission in computer science by the other university. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the fees, but was denied to pay. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the opposite party by the complainant, but to no avail. Thus, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission, Haridwar.
3. The appellant - opposite party filed written statement before the District Commission alleging the pleading of the complainant stating that the complainant took admission in the University for the vacant seat in Electrical Engineering and the complainant got his admission, thereafter, the complainant deposited the fees, but on account of taking admission in other university in computer science, the complainant applied for refund of fees which was refused by the opposite party because as per AICTE guidelines, if the student leaves the college after initiation of academic session, he is only entitled for the security deposit, which is Rs. 2,000/-, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. After giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint was decided by the District Commission vide impugned judgment dated 23.02.2019 thereby allowed the consumer complaint to pay the awarded amount in the above terms.
2
Appeal No. 110 of Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya 05.09.2022
2019 Vs.
Shivam Gupta
5. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - opposite party of the complaint case.
6. We have heard arguments advanced and submitted by the learned counsel for appellant and have gone through the record. It is also to mention that a Vakalatnama (paper No. 22) of the advocate Sh. Shivani Gupta filed on 13.05.2019 which is available on record, but inspite of service, the respondent did not participate in the hearing, hence, an order dated 02.09.2022 was passed by this Commission to proceed the appeal ex- parte against the respondent.
7. The question for consideration before us is whether the respondent - complainant falls under the definition of 'Consumer' as defined under the Act and whether the appellant university can be termed to a "service provider", or whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant or whether had been any unfair trade practice in this matter.
8. In this regard, the appellant has referred to the following case law before us stating that the complainant was neither a consumer, nor the appellant was a service provider, nor there was any matter of unfair trade practice, nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of appellant, hence, on the basis of the above several cited case law, the matter is not entertainable in District Consumer Commission, hence, liable to be dismissed.
9. Case laws relied upon by the appellant:-
1) Bihar School Examination Board Vs.
Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34
(SC)
3
Appeal No. 110 of Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya 05.09.2022
2019 Vs.
Shivam Gupta
2) Maharshi Dayanand University Vs.
Surjeet Kaur, (2010) II SCC 159
3) Anupama College of Engineering Vs.
Gulshan Kumar and others, Civil Appeal
No. 17802 of 2017
4) Director of Xavier Institute of
Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra
Hi-Tech Park and others Vs. Sujay Ghose,
III (2022) CPJ 6 (NC)
5) Regional Institute of Co-operative
management vs. Navin Kumar
Chaudhary, (2014) 3 CPR (NC) 152
10. In the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that Bihar School Examination Board does not offer "service" to any candidate, nor does any student hires or avails of any "service" from the Board for a consideration. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision is reproduced below:
"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 4 Appeal No. 110 of Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya 05.09.2022 2019 Vs. Shivam Gupta 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 competence vis-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. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 17.12.2017 rendered in Revision Petition No. 3144 of 2016; Krishan Mohan Goyal Vs. St. Mary's Academy and another, has discussed the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159, in which it has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that a student is neither a consumer, nor the University is rendering any service, relying on the decision given in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra). Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:
5Appeal No. 110 of Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya 05.09.2022 2019 Vs. Shivam Gupta "The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion. The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with. Accordingly, the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint by the District Forum and the award of relief which has been approved by the National Commission do not conform to law and we, therefore, set aside the same."
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Anupama College of Engineering (supra) has held that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments, has categorically held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service and such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13. Hon'ble National Commission in its latest judgment rendered in the case of Director of Xavier Institute of Management & 6 Appeal No. 110 of Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya 05.09.2022 2019 Vs. Shivam Gupta Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others (supra) has specifically held that the Educational Institute does not fall within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it is not rendering any services. While coming to the above conclusion, Hon'ble National Commission has relied upon a decision of Larger Bench of three Members of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases reported in I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), wherein the Larger Bench has held that educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
14. In the case of Regional Institute of Co-operative management (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that where there is a claim for refund of fees by a student of post-graduate diploma in management (agriculture business), then in such case the student is not a consumer. However, the complainants shall have liberty to seek their grievances before proper forum or civil court as per case law.
15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law laid down in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra); Maharshi Dayanand University (supra); Anupama College of Engineering (supra), Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others (supra) and Regional Institute of Co-operative management (supra), it is crystal clear that the appellant - University is neither "service provider", nor the respondent - complainant being a student is a "consumer". Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question cannot be brought before the Consumer Fora.
7
Appeal No. 110 of Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyalya 05.09.2022
2019 Vs.
Shivam Gupta
16. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission suffers from material illegality and the same is erroneous, hence, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is liable to be set aside.
17. Consequently, the appeal is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar is set aside and consumer complaint No. 498 of 2016 shall stand as dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant with this Commission, be released in its favour.
19. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
20. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 05.09.2022 8