State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Guru Gobind Singh College Of Education vs Rajveer Singh on 13 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012
Date of institution : 30.05.2012
Date of decision : 13.01.2014
Guru Gobind Singh College of Education, Talwandi Sabo, District
Bathinda through its Principal Dr. A.K. Kansal, Guru Gobind Singh
College of Education, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party
Versus
Rajveer Singh son of Shri Malkeet Singh, aged 22 years, R/o V.
Maour Khurd, PO Mour Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District
Bathinda.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
12.4.2012 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri B.S. Thind, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, Rajveer Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund the sum of Rs.12,600/- within 45 days of the receipt of the First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 2 copy of the order and in case of non-compliance to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the realization of that amount. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs and compensation to the complainant.
2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, he was a student of B.Ed. of the opposite party-College during the Session 2010-2011. At the time of the start of the Session, the information regarding the fee to be charged from the students and various other aspects of the Course were provided by the opposite party through the prospectus and it was mentioned therein that actual fee charged from a student according to Punjabi University, Patiala, was Rs.35,160/-, which was liable to variation according to Punjab Government instructions. By relying upon the conditions mentioned in the prospectus and believing the same he got admission in this Course. The Special Secretary, High Education of the Government of Punjab, vide letter dated 7.10.2010 issued directions to all the Private Self-Financed B.Ed. Colleges that they could charge only Rs.40,000/- as total actual fee from the students for the Session 2010-2011. The charges under various heads, which could be charged from the students, were rightly described in that letter. The opposite party, without adhering to the directions issued in that letter and the information provided in the prospectus, charged from him Rs.5,000/- on 20.7.2010, Rs.20,000/- on 17.1.2011, Rs.500/- on 2.5.2011, Rs.25,000/- on 20.8.2011 and Rs.2100/- totalling Rs.52,600/-, as the Course fee. He requested the opposite party many a times to refund the excess fee charged First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 3 from him but it refused to do so and the same amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on its part. On account of that deficiency in service, he suffered mental pain and agony for which he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation. He claimed Rs.17,440/- as the refund of excess fee and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum and prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party.
3. Detailed written reply was filed by the opposite party. It admitted that the complainant obtained admission in the B.Ed. Course of this College for the Session 2010-2011 and paid the said amounts as fee on different dates and that the prospectus for that Session was duly issued, which also contained fee structure and was described as Rs.35,160/- as per the Punjabi University, Patiala. It also admitted the issuance of the directions by the Punjab Government regarding the fee, vide letter dated 7.10.2010. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it pleaded that the prospectus was prepared three-four months prior to the admission and at the time of admission, allotment letter was issued to the complainant containing the proper fee structure and the time period for paying the same. It was after admitting that allotment letter that the complainant obtained the admission and deposited the fee as per the terms and conditions thereof. The fee structure could have been varied from time to time as per the instructions of the Punjab Government. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.10091 titled (Self Financed First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 4 B.Ed. Colleges Association Punjab and anr. vs. State of Punjab) on 1.7.2010 held that the respondents will not hold a Common Entrance Test for admission to B.Ed. Course for Self-Financed Aided Institutions for the academic Session 2010-2011 and the Colleges, who claimed to be the Association of such unaided Self-Financed Institutions will be at liberty to devise their own procedure for admission. Those Institutions held a meeting and constituted fee fixation committee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Jain (Retired). They decided to fix the annual fee for this Sessions at Rs.49,000/- keeping in view the interest of the students and the hardships being faced by the parents. The fee was charged from the complainant as per those instructions and the amount so deposited by him including Rs.1500/- as refundable security. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any such refund of the fee. No amount was ever charged from him in excess. There was no deficiency in service on its part and, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or litigation costs. The matter is sub-judice as Civil Writ Petition No.5493 of 2011 filed by the Self- Financed Colleges is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the complaint cannot be decided till the decision of that Writ Petition. The complaint has been filed after completion of more than a year and is barred by limitation. The same is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the District Forum with clean hands and the complaint is filed containing frivolous and concocted facts in order to harass it. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 5
4. Both the sides produced 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 learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 that the Educational Institutions are not the service providers and the complaint against the Educational Institutions is not maintainable under the Act. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged judgment so relied upon by the opposite party is only an order and not a regular judgment. There are regular judgments, which are to the contrary and, as such, it cannot be held that the Educational Institutions are not service providers. He also submitted that some Special Leave Petitions involving the same point are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the arguments be deferred till the decision of the same.
8. The judgment so cited by the learned counsel for the appellant- opposite party may be a small judgment but it cannot be termed that it is not a regular judgment. In that judgment it was held as under:- First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 6
"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. The judgments said to be contrary to this judgment were never cited before us. The decision of the complaint cannot be deferred on the ground that some Special Leave Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court involving the same matter. Once the above said judgment has been given, which is the law of the land, this Commission is not to wait for the decision of the Special Leave Petitions alleged to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Educational Institutions are not service providers, therefore, the complainant could not have maintained the complaint under the Act before the District Forum.
10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 7
11. The sum of Rs.8,800/- 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.
12. 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)
January 13, 2014 MEMBER
Bansal
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012
Date of institution : 30.05.2012 Date of decision : 13.01.2014 Guru Gobind Singh College of Education, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda through its Principal Dr. A.K. Kansal, Guru Gobind Singh College of Education, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party Versus Rajveer Singh son of Shri Malkeet Singh, aged 22 years, R/o V. Maour Khurd, PO Mour Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
......Respondent- Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 12.4.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri B.S. Thind, Advocate.
For the respondent : Shri H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, Rajveer Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund the sum of Rs.12,600/- within 45 days of the receipt of the First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 2 copy of the order and in case of non-compliance to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the realization of that amount. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs and compensation to the complainant.
2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, he was a student of B.Ed. of the opposite party-College during the Session 2010-2011. At the time of the start of the Session, the information regarding the fee to be charged from the students and various other aspects of the Course were provided by the opposite party through the prospectus and it was mentioned therein that actual fee charged from a student according to Punjabi University, Patiala, was Rs.35,160/-, which was liable to variation according to Punjab Government instructions. By relying upon the conditions mentioned in the prospectus and believing the same he got admission in this Course. The Special Secretary, High Education of the Government of Punjab, vide letter dated 7.10.2010 issued directions to all the Private Self-Financed B.Ed. Colleges that they could charge only Rs.40,000/- as total actual fee from the students for the Session 2010-2011. The charges under various heads, which could be charged from the students, were rightly described in that letter. The opposite party, without adhering to the directions issued in that letter and the information provided in the prospectus, charged from him Rs.5,000/- on 20.7.2010, Rs.20,000/-
on 17.1.2011, Rs.500/- on 2.5.2011, Rs.25,000/- on 20.8.2011 and Rs.2100/- totalling Rs.52,600/-, as the Course fee. He requested the opposite party many a times to refund the excess fee charged First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 3 from him but it refused to do so and the same amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on its part. On account of that deficiency in service, he suffered mental pain and agony for which he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation. He claimed Rs.17,440/- as the refund of excess fee and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum and prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party.
3. Detailed written reply was filed by the opposite party. It admitted that the complainant obtained admission in the B.Ed. Course of this College for the Session 2010-2011 and paid the said amounts as fee on different dates and that the prospectus for that Session was duly issued, which also contained fee structure and was described as Rs.35,160/- as per the Punjabi University, Patiala. It also admitted the issuance of the directions by the Punjab Government regarding the fee, vide letter dated 7.10.2010. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it pleaded that the prospectus was prepared three-four months prior to the admission and at the time of admission, allotment letter was issued to the complainant containing the proper fee structure and the time period for paying the same. It was after admitting that allotment letter that the complainant obtained the admission and deposited the fee as per the terms and conditions thereof. The fee structure could have been varied from time to time as per the instructions of the Punjab Government. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.10091 titled (Self Financed First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 4 B.Ed. Colleges Association Punjab and anr. vs. State of Punjab) on 1.7.2010 held that the respondents will not hold a Common Entrance Test for admission to B.Ed. Course for Self-Financed Aided Institutions for the academic Session 2010-2011 and the Colleges, who claimed to be the Association of such unaided Self-Financed Institutions will be at liberty to devise their own procedure for admission. Those Institutions held a meeting and constituted fee fixation committee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Jain (Retired). They decided to fix the annual fee for this Sessions at Rs.49,000/- keeping in view the interest of the students and the hardships being faced by the parents. The fee was charged from the complainant as per those instructions and the amount so deposited by him including Rs.1500/- as refundable security. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any such refund of the fee. No amount was ever charged from him in excess. There was no deficiency in service on its part and, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or litigation costs. The matter is sub-judice as Civil Writ Petition No.5493 of 2011 filed by the Self- Financed Colleges is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the complaint cannot be decided till the decision of that Writ Petition. The complaint has been filed after completion of more than a year and is barred by limitation. The same is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the District Forum with clean hands and the complaint is filed containing frivolous and concocted facts in order to harass it. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 5
4. Both the sides produced 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 learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 that the Educational Institutions are not the service providers and the complaint against the Educational Institutions is not maintainable under the Act. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged judgment so relied upon by the opposite party is only an order and not a regular judgment. There are regular judgments, which are to the contrary and, as such, it cannot be held that the Educational Institutions are not service providers. He also submitted that some Special Leave Petitions involving the same point are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the arguments be deferred till the decision of the same.
8. The judgment so cited by the learned counsel for the appellant- opposite party may be a small judgment but it cannot be termed that it is not a regular judgment. In that judgment it was held as under:- First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 6
"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. The judgments said to be contrary to this judgment were never cited before us. The decision of the complaint cannot be deferred on the ground that some Special Leave Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court involving the same matter. Once the above said judgment has been given, which is the law of the land, this Commission is not to wait for the decision of the Special Leave Petitions alleged to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Educational Institutions are not service providers, therefore, the complainant could not have maintained the complaint under the Act before the District Forum.
10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 7
11. The sum of Rs.8,800/- 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.
12. 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)
January 13, 2014 MEMBER
Bansal
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012
Date of institution : 30.05.2012 Date of decision : 13.01.2014 Guru Gobind Singh College of Education, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda through its Principal Dr. A.K. Kansal, Guru Gobind Singh College of Education, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party Versus Rajveer Singh son of Shri Malkeet Singh, aged 22 years, R/o V. Maour Khurd, PO Mour Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
......Respondent- Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 12.4.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri B.S. Thind, Advocate.
For the respondent : Shri H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, Rajveer Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund the sum of Rs.12,600/- within 45 days of the receipt of the First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 2 copy of the order and in case of non-compliance to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the realization of that amount. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs and compensation to the complainant.
2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, he was a student of B.Ed. of the opposite party-College during the Session 2010-2011. At the time of the start of the Session, the information regarding the fee to be charged from the students and various other aspects of the Course were provided by the opposite party through the prospectus and it was mentioned therein that actual fee charged from a student according to Punjabi University, Patiala, was Rs.35,160/-, which was liable to variation according to Punjab Government instructions. By relying upon the conditions mentioned in the prospectus and believing the same he got admission in this Course. The Special Secretary, High Education of the Government of Punjab, vide letter dated 7.10.2010 issued directions to all the Private Self-Financed B.Ed. Colleges that they could charge only Rs.40,000/- as total actual fee from the students for the Session 2010-2011. The charges under various heads, which could be charged from the students, were rightly described in that letter. The opposite party, without adhering to the directions issued in that letter and the information provided in the prospectus, charged from him Rs.5,000/- on 20.7.2010, Rs.20,000/-
on 17.1.2011, Rs.500/- on 2.5.2011, Rs.25,000/- on 20.8.2011 and Rs.2100/- totalling Rs.52,600/-, as the Course fee. He requested the opposite party many a times to refund the excess fee charged First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 3 from him but it refused to do so and the same amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on its part. On account of that deficiency in service, he suffered mental pain and agony for which he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation. He claimed Rs.17,440/- as the refund of excess fee and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum and prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party.
3. Detailed written reply was filed by the opposite party. It admitted that the complainant obtained admission in the B.Ed. Course of this College for the Session 2010-2011 and paid the said amounts as fee on different dates and that the prospectus for that Session was duly issued, which also contained fee structure and was described as Rs.35,160/- as per the Punjabi University, Patiala. It also admitted the issuance of the directions by the Punjab Government regarding the fee, vide letter dated 7.10.2010. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it pleaded that the prospectus was prepared three-four months prior to the admission and at the time of admission, allotment letter was issued to the complainant containing the proper fee structure and the time period for paying the same. It was after admitting that allotment letter that the complainant obtained the admission and deposited the fee as per the terms and conditions thereof. The fee structure could have been varied from time to time as per the instructions of the Punjab Government. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.10091 titled (Self Financed First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 4 B.Ed. Colleges Association Punjab and anr. vs. State of Punjab) on 1.7.2010 held that the respondents will not hold a Common Entrance Test for admission to B.Ed. Course for Self-Financed Aided Institutions for the academic Session 2010-2011 and the Colleges, who claimed to be the Association of such unaided Self-Financed Institutions will be at liberty to devise their own procedure for admission. Those Institutions held a meeting and constituted fee fixation committee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Jain (Retired). They decided to fix the annual fee for this Sessions at Rs.49,000/- keeping in view the interest of the students and the hardships being faced by the parents. The fee was charged from the complainant as per those instructions and the amount so deposited by him including Rs.1500/- as refundable security. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any such refund of the fee. No amount was ever charged from him in excess. There was no deficiency in service on its part and, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or litigation costs. The matter is sub-judice as Civil Writ Petition No.5493 of 2011 filed by the Self- Financed Colleges is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the complaint cannot be decided till the decision of that Writ Petition. The complaint has been filed after completion of more than a year and is barred by limitation. The same is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the District Forum with clean hands and the complaint is filed containing frivolous and concocted facts in order to harass it. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 5
4. Both the sides produced 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 learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 that the Educational Institutions are not the service providers and the complaint against the Educational Institutions is not maintainable under the Act. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged judgment so relied upon by the opposite party is only an order and not a regular judgment. There are regular judgments, which are to the contrary and, as such, it cannot be held that the Educational Institutions are not service providers. He also submitted that some Special Leave Petitions involving the same point are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the arguments be deferred till the decision of the same.
8. The judgment so cited by the learned counsel for the appellant- opposite party may be a small judgment but it cannot be termed that it is not a regular judgment. In that judgment it was held as under:- First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 6
"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. The judgments said to be contrary to this judgment were never cited before us. The decision of the complaint cannot be deferred on the ground that some Special Leave Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court involving the same matter. Once the above said judgment has been given, which is the law of the land, this Commission is not to wait for the decision of the Special Leave Petitions alleged to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Educational Institutions are not service providers, therefore, the complainant could not have maintained the complaint under the Act before the District Forum.
10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 7
11. The sum of Rs.8,800/- 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.
12. 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)
January 13, 2014 MEMBER
Bansal
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012
Date of institution : 30.05.2012 Date of decision : 13.01.2014 Guru Gobind Singh College of Education, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda through its Principal Dr. A.K. Kansal, Guru Gobind Singh College of Education, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party Versus Rajveer Singh son of Shri Malkeet Singh, aged 22 years, R/o V. Maour Khurd, PO Mour Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
......Respondent- Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 12.4.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri B.S. Thind, Advocate.
For the respondent : Shri H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, Rajveer Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund the sum of Rs.12,600/- within 45 days of the receipt of the First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 2 copy of the order and in case of non-compliance to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the realization of that amount. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs and compensation to the complainant.
2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, he was a student of B.Ed. of the opposite party-College during the Session 2010-2011. At the time of the start of the Session, the information regarding the fee to be charged from the students and various other aspects of the Course were provided by the opposite party through the prospectus and it was mentioned therein that actual fee charged from a student according to Punjabi University, Patiala, was Rs.35,160/-, which was liable to variation according to Punjab Government instructions. By relying upon the conditions mentioned in the prospectus and believing the same he got admission in this Course. The Special Secretary, High Education of the Government of Punjab, vide letter dated 7.10.2010 issued directions to all the Private Self-Financed B.Ed. Colleges that they could charge only Rs.40,000/- as total actual fee from the students for the Session 2010-2011. The charges under various heads, which could be charged from the students, were rightly described in that letter. The opposite party, without adhering to the directions issued in that letter and the information provided in the prospectus, charged from him Rs.5,000/- on 20.7.2010, Rs.20,000/-
on 17.1.2011, Rs.500/- on 2.5.2011, Rs.25,000/- on 20.8.2011 and Rs.2100/- totalling Rs.52,600/-, as the Course fee. He requested the opposite party many a times to refund the excess fee charged First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 3 from him but it refused to do so and the same amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on its part. On account of that deficiency in service, he suffered mental pain and agony for which he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation. He claimed Rs.17,440/- as the refund of excess fee and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum and prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party.
3. Detailed written reply was filed by the opposite party. It admitted that the complainant obtained admission in the B.Ed. Course of this College for the Session 2010-2011 and paid the said amounts as fee on different dates and that the prospectus for that Session was duly issued, which also contained fee structure and was described as Rs.35,160/- as per the Punjabi University, Patiala. It also admitted the issuance of the directions by the Punjab Government regarding the fee, vide letter dated 7.10.2010. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it pleaded that the prospectus was prepared three-four months prior to the admission and at the time of admission, allotment letter was issued to the complainant containing the proper fee structure and the time period for paying the same. It was after admitting that allotment letter that the complainant obtained the admission and deposited the fee as per the terms and conditions thereof. The fee structure could have been varied from time to time as per the instructions of the Punjab Government. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.10091 titled (Self Financed First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 4 B.Ed. Colleges Association Punjab and anr. vs. State of Punjab) on 1.7.2010 held that the respondents will not hold a Common Entrance Test for admission to B.Ed. Course for Self-Financed Aided Institutions for the academic Session 2010-2011 and the Colleges, who claimed to be the Association of such unaided Self-Financed Institutions will be at liberty to devise their own procedure for admission. Those Institutions held a meeting and constituted fee fixation committee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Jain (Retired). They decided to fix the annual fee for this Sessions at Rs.49,000/- keeping in view the interest of the students and the hardships being faced by the parents. The fee was charged from the complainant as per those instructions and the amount so deposited by him including Rs.1500/- as refundable security. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any such refund of the fee. No amount was ever charged from him in excess. There was no deficiency in service on its part and, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or litigation costs. The matter is sub-judice as Civil Writ Petition No.5493 of 2011 filed by the Self- Financed Colleges is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the complaint cannot be decided till the decision of that Writ Petition. The complaint has been filed after completion of more than a year and is barred by limitation. The same is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the District Forum with clean hands and the complaint is filed containing frivolous and concocted facts in order to harass it. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 5
4. Both the sides produced 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 learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012(3) CPC 615 that the Educational Institutions are not the service providers and the complaint against the Educational Institutions is not maintainable under the Act. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged judgment so relied upon by the opposite party is only an order and not a regular judgment. There are regular judgments, which are to the contrary and, as such, it cannot be held that the Educational Institutions are not service providers. He also submitted that some Special Leave Petitions involving the same point are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the arguments be deferred till the decision of the same.
8. The judgment so cited by the learned counsel for the appellant- opposite party may be a small judgment but it cannot be termed that it is not a regular judgment. In that judgment it was held as under:- First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 6
"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. The judgments said to be contrary to this judgment were never cited before us. The decision of the complaint cannot be deferred on the ground that some Special Leave Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court involving the same matter. Once the above said judgment has been given, which is the law of the land, this Commission is not to wait for the decision of the Special Leave Petitions alleged to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Educational Institutions are not service providers, therefore, the complainant could not have maintained the complaint under the Act before the District Forum.
10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
First Appeal No.699 of 2012. 7
11. The sum of Rs.8,800/- 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.
12. 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)
January 13, 2014 MEMBER
Bansal