Judgment:
(Order)
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 15.6.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 104 dated 26.3.2012 was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to refund the fee after deduction of Rs. 1,000/- as processing fee and Ops were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 48,446/- within one month from the receipt of the order.
2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant got admission in MBA 1st year with Ops in the academic session 2011-12 and after clearance in the counselling she was asked to deposit the requisite fee with OP No. 1 upto 25.7.2011 and accordingly, he deposited a sum of Rs. 49,446/-. It has been further stated that the complainant also applied for the next counselling to get admission at Punjabi University, Patiala and in the counselling the official of the OP were also present and the Ops had ensured that in case the complainant had admission in the 3rd counselling as per his choice, the amount of Rs. 48,446/- will be refunded within 15 days by deducting Rs. 1,000/- as processing charges. After getting her admission at Punjabi University Campus, Patiala in the institute of School of Management Studies through electronic media/process running at counselling, the complainant requested the Ops to refund Rs. 48,446/- but the Ops started to put of the matter on one pretext or the other and the Ops have further earned the interest on the amount of Rs. 48,446/-, therefore, the direction be given to the Ops to return the sum of Rs. 48,446/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops. It has been denied that the complainant had informed about her counselling in Punjabi University, Patiala. The admission of the complainant at Punjabi University, Patiala is a matter of record. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint has been filed on wrong facts, therefore, 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 her affidavit Ex. C-1, legal notice to Ops Ex. C-2, postal receipts Ex. C-3 and C-4, letter of the complainant dt. 21.11.2011 Ex. C-5, provisional I-card and receipt Exs. C-6 and C-7, letter dt. 1.8.2011 of complainant Ex. C-8. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Jatinder Singh Sidhu, Principal, Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order accepted 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. V.K. Arya, Advocate and learned counsel for the respondent Sh. K.K. Goel, Advocate for Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate.
9. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellants that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate the UGC guidelines or/and rules regarding the refund of the fee and if the seat consequently, remained vacant, the candidate is not entitled to refund the fee, if any, in case the candidate leaves the institute and that the learned District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. A reference can be made to the latest judgment of the Honble Haryana State Commission œLovely Professional University versus Mohit Soni?, 2013 (4) CLT 608 wherein after relying upon the judgment of œBihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha?, 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) wherein it was observed that œthe Education Boards and Universities are not Service Provider and the complaints against them are not maintainable. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of œMaharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur?, 2010(4) CPJ 19 (SC) wherein it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court as under:-
œThe contention of learned Counsel for the appellant has, therefore, to be accepted that the Rule being prohibitory in nature, the District Forum or the National Commission could not have issued a direction which violates the aforesaid statutory provision. It is settled legal proposition that neither the Court nor any Tribunal has the competence to issue a direction contrary to law and to art in contravention of a statutory provision.? and the recent judgment is in case of œP.T. Kashy and Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors.?, 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) wherein it was held as follows:-
œ1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C., wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically 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.?
10. The case of the appellant is fully covered by the decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court referred above, therefore, the complainant/respondent does not fall within the definition of consumer.
11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the order of the learned District Forum is set-aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed on the ground that the learned District Forum did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the CP Act and being Education matter. The complainant does not come under the definition of the consumer as defined under the Act.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 8.1.2014 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. 24,250/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 24,250/- 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.