Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

583):

"In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of activity is, exhypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry".

Hence, the Commission held that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'Service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational Institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

 

In our view, a student who appears in the examination conducted by the University cannot be held to be a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 2(1)(o). Such a person does not hire or avail of the services of University or the Board for consideration. On the contrary, he appears in the examination voluntarily for the purpose of getting degree or diploma and for evaluation of his merit with regard to his studies during the course of a year or years. The law on the subject is settled by the decisions of this Commission.

In the advertisement issued it was categorically and clearly written that the College is under Magadh University, Bihar and the Dental Council of India, New Delhi has recognised the same. This was a false averment. In that set of circumstances, the Commission held that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'Service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational Institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. For this, the Commission relied upon the observation of the Apex Court in Bangalore Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Others (AIR 1978 SC 548 at page
583):
"In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of activity is, exhypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry".

Hence, the Commission held that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'Service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational Institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Thereafter, this Commission held that it was a case of obvious misrepresentation on behalf of the Respondents and it tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The Commission also observed that as the institution was not recognised, the Complainants lost their two years of study, they have incurred expenses by staying in the hostel, for purchase of books and other miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, it directed the College to refund the amount of expenses and fees received by it with interest.