State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Northern India Institute Of Fashion ... vs Meghana Bhaskara on 22 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
1st Additional Bench
First Appeal No. 2042 of 2010
Date of institution : 29.11.2010
Date of decision : 22.04.2014
Northern India Institute of Fashion Technology, B-68, Phase-VII,
Mohali thrugh its Director.
.......Appellant/Opposite Party
VERSUS
Meghana Bhaskara D/o N.Bhaskara, R/o Flat No.503, GH028,
Manasarovar, Sector-28, Panchkula.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
28.10.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar
(Mohali).
Quorum:-
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Abhineet Taneja, Advocate BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER:
The appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.10.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act'), was allowed with costs of Rs.1,500/- towards litigation expenses and the opposite party was First Appeal No.2042 of 2010 2 directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.34,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 4.8.2009 i.e. the date on which it received application from the father of the complainant for refund and surrender of the seat, till the date of payment.
2. The complainant got admission with the opposite party in the Fashion Designing course and deposited fee to the tune of Rs.38,750/-, vide receipt dated 13.7.2009. Thereafter, she got admission in NIFT, Kangra on 23.7.2009 where she deposited fee of Rs.51,750/-. Her father wrote a letter dated 29.7.2009 to the opposite party before commencement of the classes informing it that the complainant had got admission in NIFT Kangra and thereby surrendering her seat and seeking refund of Rs.38,750/-. But the opposite party after two months refunded only Rs.3,250/-, vide cheque No.189614 dated 15.9.2009. Remaining amount of Rs.35,500/- had not been refunded despite many requests. According to the instructions/guidelines of the University Grants Commission (UGC), the opposite party was liable to refund the entire fee of the complainant minus processing charges of Rs.1,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service, she filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to refund her the remaining amount of Rs.34,500/-, to pay her compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- for mental agony and harassment, Rs.10,000/- on account of expenses incurred by her in pursuing this matter besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. First Appeal No.2042 of 2010 3
3. The stand of the opposite party was that the time period for withdrawal of candidature was specifically mentioned in its prospectus. Letter dated 29.7.2009 written by the father of the complainant was received on 4.8.2009. According to the condition in the prospectus, only security deposit was to be refunded to a candidate withdrawing from his/her candidature between 15.7.2009 and 31.8.2009, accordingly, she was refunded security amount of Rs.2,000/- and insurance amount of Rs.1,250/- as she withdrew her seat on 4.8.2009.
4. Both the sides produced the evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party came out with the contention that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 (P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.), the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant came up with the plea that on the basis of that judgment it cannot be concluded that the complaint was not maintainable and there is no ground for allowing the appeal.
First Appeal No.2042 of 2010 4
8. Admittedly, the opposite party is an Educational Institute. The following short order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy and another's case (supra):-
"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."
9. In view of that judgment, it is to be held that the appellant/opposite party is not a service provider and, as such, the complaint under the Act was not maintainable against it.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
11. The sum of Rs.20,038/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, along with interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, shall First Appeal No.2042 of 2010 5 be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
12. The arguments in the case were heard on 17.4.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) PRESIDING MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) Member April 22, 2014 Vinay