State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iipm School Business & Economics vs Surender Singh Negi & Another on 5 September, 2024
First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024
186 of 2016 Versus
Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 20.04.2022
Date of Final Hearing: 27.08.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 186 / 2016
IIPM School of Business & Economics
133/4, Katwaria Street
Qutab Enclave, Phase - II, New Delhi - 110016
through its Authorised Signatory and Senior Accounts Manager
Sh. Prakash Tripathi
(Through: Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Surender Singh Negi S/o Sh. Dayal Singh Negi
R/o 20-A, Adhoiwala Road
Karanpur, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Prateek Handa, Advocate)
2. Manonmaniam Sundaranar (MS) University
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu
(Through: None)
...... Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2015 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 357 of 2013, styled as Sh.1
First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another Surender Singh Negi Vs. IIPM School of Business & Economics and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, as set out in the consumer complaint are, that the appellant / opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred as "Institute") claims itself to be School of Business & Economics and is imparting education in Dehradun and respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as "University") claims itself to be an University. The Institute claims itself to be affiliated with the University, which provides degree for the courses affiliated by it and offered by the Institute. The complainant came to know about the Institute and the courses offered by it. The Dean of the Institute induced the complainant and told him about two year full time Course of Master of Business Administration in Planning and Business Entrepreneurship. The Dean further assured the complainant that the Institute provides 100% job placement to all its students and that the education is being imparted by competent lecturers. The complainant filled the form of the Institute; bought the prospectus and paid an amount of Rs. 200/- towards consideration for the same. The complainant received a letter on behalf of the Institute, whereby he was informed that he has been selected for Full Time Post Graduate Programme in Planning and Entrepreneurship Session 2010 - 12 and he was required to pay the first installment fees amounting to Rs. 1,27,500/-. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 29,000/- vide receipt No. 085 dated 06.08.2010 and Rs. 98,500/- vide receipt No. 089 dated 16.08.2010 with the Institute. When the complainant joined the above-mentioned course, he came to know that there is no proper and regular faculty for imparting education in the Institute. At the time of taking admission, the Dean of the Institute had 2 First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another told the complainant that he will have to pay the total fees of Rs. 4,20,000/-. The first installment in the first semester amounting to Rs. 1,27,500/- and the second; third and fourth installments of Rs. 97,500/- each shall be paid in the second; third and fourth semester. However, in the month of October, 2010, the Institute started demanding fees for all the semesters, which was deposited by the complainant in the first semester itself along with late fees fine of Rs. 4,500/-. After completion of two years', the examination for the subject course was held and the complainant was told that the result would be declared within a period of two months', but on the expiry of two months', when the result was not declared, nor the mark-sheet for the last three examinations, nor the degree for the subject course were issued to the complainant, the complainant inquired about the same, but no satisfactory answer was provided by the Institute.
3. It was also stated that even after expiry of one year, the result of the subject course was not declared and the complainant was not provided with the degree of the course duly pursued by him. Thus, the Institute and the University have committed unfair trade practice and have also been deficient in their services and caused a great dent in the career of the complainant. Neither any job, as assured at the time of admission, was provided to the complainant, nor the degree / mark-sheet for the last three semesters was provided to the complainant till date. As a result, the complainant though have completed the post graduate course of Planning and Entrepreneurship, is still unemployed and is left at the mercy of the Institute and University. Hence, the consumer complaint was instituted by the complainant before the District Commission, seeking reliefs mentioned in relief clause of the consumer complaint.
3First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another
4. The Institute (appellant herein) filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that the result is ready with the University and the University has already been directed by the Madurai Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court vide order dated 31.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition (MD) No. 9689 of 2013 and M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2013, to declare the result of the candidates / students and issue mark-sheet. No deficiency in service has been committed by the Institute, as it was the responsibility of the University to declare result in time. It was also submitted that the consumer complaint is not maintainable, as neither the complainant can be termed to be a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d), nor imparting education by the Institute can be termed as "service" as defined under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. Inspite of due service of notice, the University did not appear before the District Commission, hence the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte against the University. Later on, the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte also against the Institute. The appellant has also not appeared before the District Commission on the date of arguments in the consumer complaint.
6. The District Commission, after hearing respondent No. 1 / complainant and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2015, thereby directing the appellant & respondent No. 2, who were opposite parties before the District Commission, to refund jointly or severally, the fees of Rs. 4,20,000/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant, besides to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- towards 4 First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another compensation; Rs. 4,500/- towards late fees and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs, within a period of 30 days', failing which the respondent No. 1 / complainant was further held entitled to interest @8% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of impugned judgment and order till realization.
7. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been submitted on behalf of the Institute as an appellant, stating that the impugned judgment and order is ex-parte one, which has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. The District Commission has not considered the fact that as per Societies Registration Act, 1860, every society registered under the Act may sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman or Principal Secretary or Trustees. However, in this regard, the complainant has failed to do the needful, hence the consumer complaint was not legally maintainable. The District Commission has also not considered the fact that an educational institute is not a service provider and, as such, does not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission. Therefore, the consumer complaint was not legally maintainable.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 and have also perused the record. We have further gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, which are available on record.
9. At the outset, it needs to be stated that the matter pertains to refund of fees, as would be evident from relief "A" claimed by the 5 First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another complainant in his consumer complaint. In the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), cited by learned counsel for the appellant - Institute, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that Bihar School Examination Board does not offer "service" to any candidate, nor does any student hires or avails of any "service" from the Board for a consideration. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision is reproduced below:
"10. The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its "services" to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as 6 First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another having competence vis-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination."
10. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 17.12.2017 rendered in Revision Petition No. 3144 of 2016; Krishan Mohan Goyal Vs. St. Mary's Academy and another, has discussed the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159, in which it has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that a student is neither a consumer, nor the University is rendering any service, relying on the decision given in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra). Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:
"The respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor is the appellant rendering any service. The claim of the respondent to award B.Ed. degree was almost in the nature of a relief praying for a direction to the appellant to act contrary to its own rules. The National Commission, in our opinion, with the utmost respect to the reasoning given therein did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion. The case decided by this Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) clearly lays down 7 First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another the law in this regard with which we find ourselves in full agreement with. Accordingly, the entire exercise of entertaining the complaint by the District Forum and the award of relief which has been approved by the National Commission do not conform to law and we, therefore, set aside the same."
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017; Anupama College of Engineering Vs. Gulshan Kumar and others, decided on 30.10.2017, also cited by learned counsel for the appellant
- Institute, has held that in view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments, has categorically held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there can not be a question of deficiency in service and such matter can not be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment rendered in the case of Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others Vs. Sujay Ghose reported in III (2022) CPJ 6 (NC), has specifically held that the Educational Institute does not fall within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it is not rendering any services. While coming to the above conclusion, Hon'ble National Commission has relied upon a decision of Larger Bench of three Members of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Manu Solanki and others Vs. Vinayak Mission University and other connected cases reported in I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), wherein the Larger Bench has held that educational 8 First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as well as the law laid down in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra); Maharshi Dayanand University (supra); Anupama College of Engineering (supra) and Director of Xavier Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship Kinfra Hi-Tech Park and others (supra), it is crystal clear that respondent No. 1 - complainant being a student is neither a "consumer", nor the appellant & respondent No. 2 are "service providers". Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter in question can not be brought before the Consumer Fora.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/ complainant cited judgment and order dated 09.09.2015 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7003-7004 of 2015; P. Sreenivasulu and another Vs. P.J. Alexander and another, wherein it was held that an educational institution would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The aforesaid judgment does not provide any help to respondent No. 1 / complainant, in view of latest law on the subject, referred above.
15. On the basis of the appreciation of evidence on record as well as law on the subject, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the District Commission is perfectly unjustified and not in accordance with law on the subject and we find illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission and we are inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Commission in our appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the appeal deserves to 9 First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside and consumer complaint warrants dismissal.
16. However, it is worth to mention here that the appellant has clearly mentioned in its written statement filed before the District Commission that the result is ready with the University and the University has already been directed by the Madurai Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court vide order dated 31.07.2013 passed in Writ Petition (MD) No. 9689 of 2013 and M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2013, to declare the result of the candidates / students and issue mark-sheet. In its written arguments, the University has stated that it is ready to send the mark statement to the complainant if he remits the fees arrears of Rs. 17,160/-. Thus, the interest of justice as well as the fitness of things require that a direction be given to respondent No. 2 - University to provide mark-sheet to respondent No. 1 / complainant on his depositing an amount of Rs. 17,160/- with the University. The said direction also holds good in view of the act that the complainant has completed the course in question and there are fees arrears of Rs. 17,160/-.
17. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the District Commission is set aside and consumer complaint No. 357 of 2013 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeal. The amount deposited by the appellant with this Commission, be released in its favour. However, the respondent No. 2
- University is directed to send mark-sheet to respondent No. 1 / complainant, in case the respondent No. 1 / complainant deposits the required amount of Rs. 17,160/- with the University.
10First Appeal No. IIPM School of Business & Economics 05.09.2024 186 of 2016 Versus Sh. Surender Singh Negi and another
18. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information. The original record of the District Commission be also remitted back forthwith.
19. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 05.09.2024 11