w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



ICL Institute of Management and Technology v/s Ranjit Singh & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- ICL TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2014PTC263199

Company & Directors' Information:- H S MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC141500

Company & Directors' Information:- A S INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2005PTC140941

    First Appeal No. 166 of 2014

    Decided On, 12 May 2014

    At, Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. B.M. BEDI
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. URVASHI AGNIHOTRI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Ammish Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Ranjit Singh, in person.



Judgment Text

Nawab Singh, President (Oral):

1. The Director, ICL Institute of Managerment and Technology (hereinafter referred as ‘appellant’) is in appeal against the order dated December 17th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Ambala. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

'………….the complaint is accepted and Op No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions:-

(i) To refund Rs.32,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 31.08.2012 i.e. the cut off date the withdrawal of admission, after deducting processing fee of Rs.1000/- as per Section 10 of All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987, till its actual realization.

(ii) To pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10000/- in lump sum on account of causing mental harassment as well as costs of litigation etc incurred by the complainant.

The aforesaid directions should be complied within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the order failings which the award shall attract interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.'

2. Rajnit Singh-complainant (Respondent No.1) got admission in the institute of the appellant in M.B.A. for the academic year 20120-2013 through Haryana State Counseling Society, Panchkula. He deposited Rs.32,000/- with the appellant-opposite party vide receipt Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2. The complainant attended classes for two days and thereafter felt that he would not be able to come daily to attend classes from his residence situated at a long distance from the institute and also that he was unable to afford the expenses of Hostel. He requested the appellant-institute to withdraw his admission and asked for the refund of the fee etc but the appellant refused to refund the same.

3. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum which was allowed by the impugned order by issuing direction to the appellant as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4. The dispute is between the respondent No.1 (complainant) and the Educational Institute. So, the issue before this Commission is as to whether the question of deficiency in service arises or not?

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) C.P.J. 34 (SC) held that the examination fee paid by student is not a consideration for availment of service, but charge paid for privilege of participation in examination. It has also been held that Education Boards & Universities are not ‘Service Provider’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

6. In P.T. Koshy& Anr. Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to judgment Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159 held that education is not commodity and Educational institutions are not providing any service. Therefore, in the matter of admission, fee etc, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7. In view of the legal position enunciated above, the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. Hence, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However,thecomplainantshall have liberty to seek his grievances beforethe proper forum or civil court, a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s per law. He can seek help forcondonationof delay in accordance with law laid down inLaxmiEngineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – 1995(3) SCC 583. 9. The statutory amount of Rs.21,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
O R