Full Judgment
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member:
1. The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called œthe opposite parties?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.375 dated 11.11.2008 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the OP was directed to refund the entire amount of fee deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs. 37,425/- after deducting amount of Rs. 4,000/- already refunded and also after deducting the processing fee as per instructions of AICTE i.e. Rs. 1,000/- and also pay interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 22.12.2007 till realization.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that complainant No. 1 had applied to get admission in MCA-II Branch with the Ops and got the same in Management Quota for the session 2008 and had deposited the required fee on 12.7.2007 in favour of complainant No. 1. The Ops are affiliated with PTU, however, complainant No. 1 had surrendered her MCA seat on 27.7.2007 before starting of the session as she changed her mind. At the time of surrendering the seat, the concerned authorities had assured that her fee so deposited by her at the time of getting the admission will be refunded. However, the Ops failed to refund the amount despite writing letters on 12.11.2007 and 12.12.2007. She has also surrendered the seat before the start of the session. However, the respondents gave just Rs. 4,000/- on 22.12.2007 and failed to refund the remaining amount. A public notice was also published in Sunday Hindustan Times, Chandigarh on 14.9.2008 on behalf of AICTE by issuing instructions to Technical Institutions in which it has been clearly mentioned that any institution or College can withheld or retained the fee so deposited by the concerned Student to get admission in any course after surrendering the seat before or after the start of the session and similar instructions were also issued by the PTU. The Ops had refunded fee to Sakshipur D/o Pardeep Puri, # 1431, FF, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh student of MCA-II, therefore, non-refund of the fee is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which caused great mental tension, harassment to the complainant. Hence, the complaint with the direction to the Ops to refund the fee, pay compensation and litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, it has been stated that complainant No. 1 had submitted her application for surrender of seat on 28.8.2007 and not on 27.7.2008. The amount of Rs. 4,000/- was admissible to complainant No. 1 as per the instructions of AICTE/PTU, which was refunded to her vide draft No. 074789 dated 22.12.2007. In case the seat left by the student remained vacant then the student is not entitled to refund. The instructions referred by the complainant are applicable only in case the institution filled up the seat. Accordingly, it has been stated that there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and 2, receipt dt. 12.7.07 Ex. C-3, public notification Ex. C-4, notice dt. 12.11.07 Ex. C-5, notice dt. 12.12.07 Ex. C-6, notice dt. 2.1.2008 Ex. C-7, letter dt. 22.12.2007 Ex. C-8, instruction issued by PTU, Jal. Ex. C-9, letter dt. 22.12.07 Ex. C-10, postal receipts Ex. C-11 and C-12, receipt dt. 26.7.2007 Ex. C-13. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. H.R. Verma, Director/Principal Ex. R-1.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as stated above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sh. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate and learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for Sh. Nakul Sharma, Advocate.
9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended that the complaint was wrongly allowed by the learned District Forum that the complainant had surrendered the seat before the start of the session and that this fact was not considered by the learned District Forum. Otherwise, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the learned District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. A reference has been made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in œMaharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur? wherein it was held that matter of admission, fees etc. cannot be a question of deficiency in service and barred to entertain the Consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has also relied upon Honble Supreme Court in œBihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha? as well as œP.T. Koshy and Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors.?.
10. This is a case of refund of fee and it has been specifically mentioned by the Honble Supreme Court in œMaharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur?, 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C., relying upon all earlier judgments held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further Honble Supreme Court in œBihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha?, 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) observed that œthe Education Boards and Universities are not Service Provider and the complaints against them are not maintainable. The Honble Apex Court in its latest judgment œP.T. Koshy and Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors.?, 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) has followed the above views.
10. The counsel for the respondents has not rebutted these judgments, therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in question as the question, relates to refund of fee. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the complaint filed by the complainants/respondents is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs
11. However, she could adjudicate her claim before the appropriate Forum.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 18,160/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 18,160/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.