State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.M.Mushthaq Ahamed,Madurai. vs M/S.Arulmigu Kalasalingam College Of ... on 21 August, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.229/2023
(Against the order made in C.C.No.30/2019 dated 24.03.2023 on the file of
the District Commission, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur.)
MONDAY, THE 21th DAY OF AUGUST 2023
S.M.Mushthaq Ahamed,
S/o S.Mabu Batcha,
No.4/706, Mahalakshmi Nagar 4th Street,
North Madurai, Madurai.
Now residing at:
Door No.84, New Door No.210,
Odai Street, Sivakasi Town,
Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/s Arulmigu Kalasalingam
College of Pharmacy,
Through its Correspondence,
Anand Nagar, Krishnankoil,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District - 626 126.
2. M/s Arulmigu Kalasalingam
College of Pharmacy,
Through its Principal,
Anand Nagar, Krishnankoil,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District - 626 126.
2
3. M/s Arulmigu Kalasalingam
College of Pharmacy,
Through its Chancellor,
Anand Nagar, Krishnankoil,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District - 626 126. Respondents/Opposite Parties
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : Mr. S.M.A. Jinnah,Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents-1 to 3/Opp.Parties-1 to 3 : Mr.A.Swatheeswaran, Advocate.
Aggrieved over by the dismissal order passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur made in
C.C.No.30/2019, dated 24.03.2023 the complainant has preferred this appeal. This
appeal is posted for filing written arguments of appellant on 08.08.2023. Since the
case is involved Educational Institution as service provider, this Commission raised
maintainability issues and reserved the case for order, and upon perusing the
material records, this Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The case of the complainant is that, he joined the opposite parties college in the course of D.Pharm (Doctor of Pharmacy) and he paid Rs.1,75,000/- as donation, and paid Rs.1,25,000/- towards educational fees on 28.06.2018, and paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.07.2018 and on 27.10.2018 paid Rs.65,000/- towards hostel fees. The complainant hardly went to college from 24.10.2018 to 08.01.2019 and thereafter his father become ill and he was unable to continue his education. When the complainant asked for refund of the amount, the opposite parties failed to return the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed claiming a total amount of Rs.4,65,000/- 3 towards refund of amount, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
2. The opposite parties in the written version have stated that since the complainant attended the college for more than 30 days, as per the UGC Guidelines he is not entitled for any refund. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The District Commission after perusal of evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 and Ex.B1, finally dismissed the complaint.
4. Aggrieved with the dismissal order, the appeal has been preferred by the complainant on the following:
Grounds: That, the District Commission order is erroneous and the District Commission finding that there cannot be any refund after 30 days are not correct. Hence, they prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the District Commission order.
5. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Educational Institutions are the service providers or not?
6. Discussion on the Point: The Consumer Fora have powers to detail with only certain kind of matters. Particularly, if there is any deficiency in service by a service provider. Here, the complaint has been made against the Educational Institution. Whether the Educational Institutions all covered under the Consumer Protection Act has been decided by the Apex Court and recently in the Hon'ble National Commission orders.
4
7. The learned complainant's advocate represented that the case of Manu Solanki and others .Vs. Vinayaga Mission University was pending before the Supreme Court for deciding whether the Educational Institution is a service provider or not?. However this case cannot be kept pending till the disposal of that case.
8. Recently, the Hon'ble National Commission has passed a detailed order in C.Deepak Tyagi & 14 Others -Vs- Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... on 20 January, 2020, after consolidating many cases in this regard. It addressed many issues and answered them in detail. Finally it concluded that the Educational Institutions are not service providers and imparting Education is not a service and the Commission did not have requisite jurisdiction in the following words:
"In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".
This is the prevalent law now and binding upon this commission. So, the opposite parties which are rendering education through their college is not a service provider and as such the complaint is not maintainable as it is not a consumer complaint.
5
9. In the result,
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The order passed by the District Commission, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur made in C.C.No.30/2019, dated 24.03.2023 is hereby confirmed.
3. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 21th day of August 2023.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
6Corrected