At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Vijayalaxmi Jha, Jyoti Kumari, Advocates. For the Respondent: Bijoy Kumar Pradhan, Madhusamita Bora, Advocates.
The son of the complainant took admission in St. Xavier Public School Korba after depositing a fee of Rs. 57,610/- with the said school on 11.07.2013. The case of the petitioner is that after taking admission the son of the complainant voluntarily left school since he wanted to go back to his previous school. The case of the complainant on the other hand is that though he had deposited the fee, admission was refused to him on account of his having failed to deposit the original migration certificate and character certificate. The complainant then approached the concerned District Foruim by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the fee of Rs 57,610 along with expenses etc.
2. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
3. It is not in dispute that the school where the fee was deposited by the complainant for his child was rendering education to the students taking admission therein. The question as to whether a consumer complaint at the behest of a student is maintainable against an education institution or not came up for consideration by a Three Member Bench of this Commission in CC 261 of 2012, Manu Solanki Vs. Vinayak Mission University and connected matters and vide its order dated 20.01.2020 the larger bench inter alia held as under:-
51. 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.
4. In view of the above-said decision of the larger bench of this Commission a consumer complaint for redressal of the grievances of the complaina
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nt was not an appropriate remedy. Hence the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the consumer complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to avail such other remedy as may be open to him in law.<