3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 9.1.2013.

4. Hence, this revision petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent approached the petitioner on 16.2.2011 for admission of his son against the advertisement issued by the petitioner. The respondent filled up and submitted the admission form on 28.2.2011. He also attended 'cutting edge' module course at Noida from 18.7.2011 to 22.7.2011. The assertion of the respondent that the course would start from March, 2011, was totally unfounded and was not based on any advertisement or pamphlet or prospectus issued by the petitioner. The advertisement clearly shows that the admission open in February/June 2011 Batches. When the respondent fills up the form only on 28.2.2011, how can he expect that the course will start from March, 2011 when there was no advertisement or no assurance to this effect. It was never promised that the course would start in March, 2011. The admission process mentioned in the advisement will definitely take some time and it was clearly mentioned that successful candidates will be informed by E-mail about their admission and date of commencement of actual course. As the respondent's son attended the 'cutting edge course' at Noida in July, 2011, it cannot be said that he did not understand that the course had not started in March 2011 and it will start at a later date. If he had any objections, he should have not attended the 'cutting edge course' in July, 2011. The petitioner had spent Rs.50,000/- on the respondent's son's attending course at Noida. The course was to start in September, 2011 and the course at Noida was only an introductory course to orient the students for the main course. The respondent decided to discontinue the studies of his son suddenly and demanded the full fees back. Clause 9 and 10 of the code of conduct of the application form, which provided code of conduct as well as terms and conditions read as under:-

"9. No fees, including registration and tuition fees will be refunded for any reason whatsoever...

10. No fees, including registration and tuition fees will be refunded for any reason whatsoever…"

7. From the point of view of agreement of the Institution with the student, it is very clear that once admission is taken, fee along with registration fee will not be refunded in any circumstances. However, in the present case, the petitioner was willing to refund the fee after deducting Rs.50,000/- that was spent on initial introductory course wherein the respondent's son had participated in July, 2011 at Noida. Both the fora below have not appreciated the agreement entered between the Institution and the student.

8. Learned counsel mentions that education is not a subject matter under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he quoted the following judgments:-

A. "P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012 decided on 9.8.2012. It has been held that:-

2

In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 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."

B. Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159. It has been held that:

"Consumer Protection-consumer/Consumer dispute/Locus standi-Generally- University- if covered-Direction to issue BEd degree against rules of examination- Legality-Held, respondent as a student is neither consumer nor University is rendering any service to its students-Hence, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint-Respondent pursued MA and BEd simultaneously contrary to general rules of examination which prohibits pursuing two courses simultaneously-She had chosen to continue MA, while admission to BEd was cancelled-Without disclosing the said fact, respondent managed to appear for supplementary examinations for BEd, and passed, which results were withheld on detecting the mischief-Complaint filed for direction to award BEd degree- Held, claim of respondent was for a direction to appellant to act contrary to its own rules-No court has competence to issue direction contrary to law nor can direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions-Hence, National Commission should not have issued direction to appellant to act contrary to statutory provisions-Also, respondent cannot plead estoppel either by conduct or against statute so as to gain any advantage just because she was erroneously allowed to appear in the examination-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Ss. 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(d)(iii)"

C. Mayank Tiwari Vs. FIITJEE Ltd. RP No.4335 of 2015, decided on 08.12.2014 (NC), wherein the National Commission while relying on the above two judgements has dismissed the revision petition.

9. Respondent in person argued that the course was to start from March, 2011 and it was wrong to say that petitioner never admitted or agreed that course would start from March. This is very clear in a communication by Shikha Ghhabra, Sr. Advisor, WLC, Ahmedabad, dated 28.2.2011, which states as follows:-

"This is to certify that Mr.Vatsal Bhatt has registered for the Professional Diploma in Business Management at WLC College Ahmedabad Campus. Wigan & Leigh College is one of the largest government funded UK institutions with a world-wide reputation for quality education. The college is over 150 years old and has an active presence in 26 countries across the world.

The college has been operating in India for the past 15 years and has 22 campuses located in India. The college offers professional education and training in the areas of Business Management, Fashion Technology, Advertising & Graphic Design and Media Studies. The fee per year for the course is as follows:

3

Year 1: March 2011

Tuition Fee Payable To WLC, College (I) Ltd. Rs.1,80,000/ - Security Deposit Rs.10,000/-

Service Tax @ 10.30% of Tuition fee Rs.18540/- Registration fee payable to Wigan &

Leigh College UK GBP200 (Pound fee)

Year 2: March 2012

Tuition Fee Payable To WLC College(I) Ltd. Rs.1,80,000/- Service Tax @ 10.30% of Tuition fee Rs.18540/- Registration fee payable to Wigan &

Leigh College UK GBP 200 (Pound Fee)"

10. The respondent pointed out that from the above description, it is clear that the fee was being charged from 1^stMarch, 2011 and therefore the obvious presumption would be that course will start from March itself. The respondent also drew my attention to its description of cutting age training as mentioned in the document 'A Bridge to Your Future'. This is mentioned as follows:-

"Cutting Edge: The training is an essential aspect of your professional development. It specifically focusses on general skills and attitude that all professionals need to acquire. Cutting Edge training begins at your learning location with basic workshops on skills development and then progressively builds skills and attitude required by you to complete effectively at work. It covers areas such as visioning, goal settling, planning and organising, which help to achieve goals. Other areas include integrity, perseverance, time and resource management. This programme helps you gain muscle in developing appropriate attitude and beliefs to handle change, adversity and stress at the workplace. It systematically engages you to take responsibility for your own development career and life. Camp: The Cutting Edge training culminates in the Boot Camp at Noida. This five day residential camp is designed to take your learning to an entirely different level. Training at the camp is entirely experimental. You will get the opportunity to attend a detailed assessment centre and will be provided individualised feedback and counselling. Camp trainers will also assist you in goal setting and keep track of your progress over the years."

11. The respondent asserted that it is clear from the above description of the cutting age module that the camp was to be held after the student has been through the main studies in the campus. To hold this camp at the beginning of the course has no meaning. Therefore,

4

organising cutting age training for the son of the complainant where he attended for 5 days was useless and no money can be claimed by the petitioner for this course. He pointed out that petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- as spent on the son of the complainant for this module in Noida. It was also stated by the respondent that after depositing fees and other amounts, the petitioner did not provide any information in respect of the date of start of the course at Ahmedabad campus in spite of several letters and E-mails sent by the complainant to the petitioner. The complainant personally met the in-charge of Ahmedabad campus where she had promised that the course would start from 25^thJune, 2011. The complainant again sent E- mail on 4^thJuly, 2011 and asked about the actual date of start of the course because by then the course had not started. No reply was sent by the petitioner in respect of this mail. Even though the petitioner is now saying that the course was to start from September, 2011, but the complainant was never informed about this by the petitioner, until the complainant's son decided to leave the course. The course was to start from March, 2011, but it did not start till August 2011 and no information was provided to the complainant about the starting date of the course in spite of many communications sent to the petitioner, the complainant had no choice but to withdraw the candidature of his son from the course because the complainant did not want to spoil the career of son in the uncertainty of the course. Both the fora below have accepted the complaint and have allowed the full refund of all the money paid by the complainant to the petitioner.

12. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have gone through the records thoroughly. From the communication sent on 28.2.2011 by Shikha Ghhabra, Sr. Advisor, WLC, Ahmedabad, it is evident that the first year would start from 1^stMarch, 2011 and the second year would start from 1^stMarch, 2012. Obviously, the fee was charged from 1^stMarch, 2011 till end of session. Complainant is right when he presumes that the course will start from March, 2011. As the course did not start even after four months of the scheduled date, the deficiency on the part of the petitioner is self-evident. I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that in case of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra) the issue was related to issuance of B.Ed. degree, which can only be issued as per the Rules and Regulations of the concerned University. Similarly, in the case of Mayank Tiwari Vs. FIITJEE Ltd. RP No.4335 of 2015, decided on 08.12.2014 (NC), the complainant discontinued with his coaching on account of not being satisfied with quality of coaching. In the case of P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012 decided on 9.8.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on its judgment in case of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (supra) and has 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." The facts of these cases relate to statutory powers and functions of the educational institutions or the quality of education. The facts of the present case relate to the administrative aspects and are different from the cases cited. Moreover, the petitioner is not recognised by the AICTE as admitted in the reply and therefore, it cannot be treated as an educational institution in the present case. Thus, the petitioner's act comes under the unfair trade practice as he did collect the fees in February itself and promised the session from March, but did not commence the actual course even till August. As per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unfair trade practice is a subject matter that is covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, in the present case I am of the view that petitioner has spent some money in arranging training at

5

Noida. The petitioner has stated that Rs.50,000/- has been spent for training, which seems excessive and allowance of Rs.25,000/- can be given for this training, which the petitioner may deduct from the total money paid by the complainant to him, while refunding the remaining amount.

13. Based on the above discussions, the revision petition is partly allowed and petitioner is liable to refund all the amounts received by him from the complainant after deducting Rs.25,000/- only (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.12.2011 till realization. The orders of the Fora below stand modified accordingly. Orders relating to cost and payment for mental shock as ordered by the District Forum remain as it is. This order be complied within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, an interest of 12%p.a. shall be applicable for payment from the date of this order till realization.

14. No order as to costs for this revision petition.

......................

PREM NARAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

6