State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mata Gujri Sr. Sec. Public School vs Jaspreet Kaur on 21 January, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.195 of 2014
Date of institution : 28.02.2014
Date of decision : 21.01.2015
Mata Gujri Sr. Sec. Public School, Near Bus Stand, Barnala, through
its Principal/Director Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kaushal.
.......Appellant- opposite party No.1
Versus
1. Jaspreet Kaur daughter of Avtar Singh, resident of VPO
Thuliwal, Tehsil and District Barnala.
......Respondent- Complainant
2. National Institute of Open Schooling, Regional Centre,
Chandigarh, YMCA Complex, Sector 11-C, Chandigarh,
through its Regional Director.
....Respondent- opposite party No.2
First Appeal against the order dated
16.01.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Aakash Singla, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Tribhuwan Singla, Adv. For respondent No.2 : Sh. Rohit Goswami, Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/opposite party No.1 has preferred this appeal against the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Jaspreet Kaur, respondent No.1/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (in short "Act"), was allowed and this opposite party was First Appeal No.195 of 2014. 2 directed to refund the sum of Rs.10,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and to pay her consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for wasting her one precious year.
2. The complainant alleged, in her complaint, that opposite party No.1/school is running educational institute under opposite party No.2 and is duly affiliated with it. She took admission in the institute of opposite party No.1 in 10th class and paid Rs.10,000/- as fee, vide two receipts dated 04.09.2012 and 22.01.2013. Opposite party No.1 issued Student Identity Card to her; which had been issued by opposite party No.2. She was given instructions by the former opposite party that the annual examination shall be held in the month of March/April 2013 and that the roll number for the same shall be issued by opposite party No.2, through it. The roll number was not issued before the examination though she approached both the opposite parties. As a result of that, she could not appear in the examination and her one year was wasted. In these circumstances, she is entitled to the refund of the fee of Rs.10,000/- and is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the loss of one year study and Rs.70,000/- for mental shock, pain and agony; besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. She prayed for the issuance of the directions accordingly to the opposite parties.
3. The complaint was contested by opposite party No.1, who filed written reply before the District Forum. In that written reply, it admitted that it is running Educational Institute at Barnala and that the complainant paid Rs.10,000/-, as tuition fee. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that it is only First Appeal No.195 of 2014. 3 giving coaching to the weak students for their better future and is not affiliated to opposite party No.2 nor any such Identity Card was issued to the complainant. It is charging only tuition fee from the weak students for giving coaching and no such roll number was to be provided to the complainant for appearing in Secondary Class examination. In these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to the refund of the said tuition fee nor she is entitled to any such compensation etc. The complainant has no locus standi nor any cause of action to file this complaint and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. The same is frivolous, vexatious, baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law. It prayed for the dismissal thereof with costs.
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. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 that the opposite parties are Educational Institutions and, as such, are not service providers. The complaint was not cognizable by the District Forum and it committed an illegality by entertaining and deciding the same. In support of his arguments he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012(3) CPC 615(P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen First Appeal No.195 of 2014. 4 Charitable Trust & Ors.). In view of the said judgment the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the counsel for respondent No.1/complainant that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum after considering all the aspects of the case and there is no ground for upsetting that order. The complainant is a 'consumer' and the opposite parties are service providers. On account of their failure to provide the roll number to the complainant for appearing in the examination, they committed deficiency in service, for which they have been rightly penalized by the District Forum.
8. Admittedly, the opposite party No.1 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."First Appeal No.195 of 2014. 5
9. In view of that judgment, it is to be held that the opposite parties are not service providers 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.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 appellant/opposite party No.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to it.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
January 21, 2014 MEMBER
dv