State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Indian Institute Of Planning And ... vs Shashank Bahuguna on 6 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1104 of 2012
Date of institution : 22.08.2012
Date of decision : 06.12.2013
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management, IIPM Tower,
C-127, Phase-8, SAS Nagar, ELTOP Industrial Area, Mohali
through its Dean.
....Appellant- opposite party
Versus
Shashank Bahuguna S/o Hanumant Prasad Bahuguna, resident of
H.No. 43, Govind Vihar, Baltana, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.
....Respondent-complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
13.07.2012 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate.
For the respondent : None JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party, against the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, Shashank Bahuguna, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short the 'Act'), was allowed, and the opposite party was directed to pay him the compensation of Rs.25,000/-, and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. As per the averments First Appeal No.1104 of 2012 2 made in the complaint, the complainant applied for an admission in the opposite party Institute of MBA Programme of ISPE and deposited Rs.25,000/-, on 04.01.2012. He applied for educational loan to the State Bank of India, Chandigarh but her application was rejected on the ground that there was no approval of AICTE regarding the said course and that the opposite party was not a deemed University. That itself shows that the opposite party has not got the approval of AICTE. She approached the other Banks but they also refused her request for the loan on the same ground. In spite of the passing of one year the opposite party has not obtained the requisite approval and the same amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on its part and she is entitled to the refund of the said amount of Rs.25,000/-, along with interest @21% from the date of the deposit of that amount and Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation.
2. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. It averred in the written reply that sum of Rs.25,000/-, was received from the complainant, was retention fee, which was non-refundable as per the norms. The brochure regarding the courses offered by it was duly provided to the complainant and it was mentioned therein that it is affiliated to the University and the degree was approved by the UGC. It is a registered Society and is not providing any technical education, and, as such no approval of AICTE was required. The non-sanctioning of the loan by the Bank, does not make it responsible for not allowing the complainant to attend the classes. No mis-representation was made by it to the complainant. Total transparency was maintained regarding the courses offered by it. First Appeal No.1104 of 2012 3 The complainant was fully aware as regards the nature of the course and the degree to be awarded. She got enrolled having full knowledge thereof. There was no such deficiency in service on its part. Moreover, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as it is not providing any such service. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself.
3. 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.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party as no one appeared for the complainant and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party came out with a 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.
6. 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 First Appeal No.1104 of 2012 4 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."
7. In view of that judgment, it is to be held that the opposite party was not a service provider and, as such, the complaint under the Act was not maintainable against it.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
9. The sum of Rs.15,000/- 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 appellant/opposite party by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
December 06, 2013 MEMBER
Kumud