Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

A/848/2014

Disposition

allowed

Advocates

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary — First Appeal No. 848/2014 (TERI University v. Ms. Nikita Jain)

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant, Ms. Nikita Jain, took admission in the M.Sc. (Economics) programme at TERI University and was issued registration number 12020924. She deposited Rs. 53,955 on 07.07.2012 for the first semester. After being selected at Jawaharlal Nehru University, she emailed TERI University on 30.07.2012 requesting cancellation of admission and refund of the deposited fees and did not attend any classes. The Registrar of TERI University replied that the programme had commenced on 23.07.2012 and that only Rs. 7,000 (security deposit) would be refunded. The complainant filed a consumer complaint on 04.09.2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service and seeking a full refund of Rs. 53,955.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Commission) on 22.07.2014 found that TERI University was deficient in service, characterized the relevant brochure clause as illogical and an unfair trade practice, relied on prior National Commission decisions to the complainant's advantage, and directed TERI University to refund Rs. 52,955 (retaining Rs. 1,000), with interest at 10% per annum if not paid within 30 days.

TERI University (the Appellant) challenged that order by filing the present First Appeal (No. 848/2014) asserting that it had complied with brochure terms by offering to refund Rs. 7,000, and that the student's withdrawal after commencement caused an unfillable vacant seat and financial loss. The Respondent (the original complainant) did not file a reply to the appeal despite multiple opportunities. The appellate bench heard submissions (noting absence of parties at the hearing) and addressed the question of jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act before deciding the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether education imparted by institutions (other than coaching institutions) falls within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, i.e., whether educational institutions providing education/related activities constitute "service" for the purposes of consumer jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (TERI University)

The Appellant immediately agreed to refund the refundable deposits of Rs. 7,000 as per the information brochure 2012-2013 and the letter dated 02.07.2012.
Because the Respondent withdrew her candidature after commencement of the programme, the vacant seat could not be filled and the Appellant suffered financial loss; therefore the District Commission's order directing a nearly full refund was incorrect and should be set aside.
The Appellant prayed for setting aside the District Commission's impugned judgment dated 22.07.2014.

Respondent's Position

The opinion records that the Respondent failed to file a reply to the appeal despite multiple opportunities; no detailed appellate-stage arguments from the Respondent are recorded in the opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159	Held that education is not a commodity; educational institutions do not provide a "service" under the Consumer Protection Act for matters of admission and fees; such matters cannot be entertained by Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.	The appellate bench relied on this precedent as authoritative on jurisdiction and concluded that the District Forum should not have adjudicated the complaint on merits because the subject matter falls outside consumer jurisdiction.
P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 (order dated 09.08.2012)	The Supreme Court followed the Maharshi Dayanand University dictum and dismissed the special leave petition, reiterating that education is not a commodity and consumer fora cannot entertain such matters.	The Court cited this order as a subsequent reaffirmation by the Supreme Court of the principle in Maharshi Dayanand University and used it to reinforce the jurisdictional conclusion.
Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017 (02.11.2017)	Reiterated the consistent view that education is not a service under the Consumer Protection Act and that orders of National Commission inconsistent with this view were set aside.	The appellate bench cited this decision to show continued and consistent Supreme Court authority on the issue and to demonstrate that the District Forum's order conflicted with binding precedent.
Manu Solanki & Ors. v. Vinayaka Mission University & Ors., I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC)	Held that institutions rendering education (including vocational courses and pre/post-admission activities, excursions, extra-curricular activities, etc.), except coaching institutions, are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.	The bench relied on this National Commission pronouncement to support the narrower exception for coaching institutions and to justify the conclusion that the present university (a non-coaching institution) is not amenable to consumer forum jurisdiction.
Sandeep Pal Singh v. Punjab Agricultural University & Ors., (2011) CPJ 338 (NC) and Revised Petition No. 1995 of 2008 Punjab Technical University v. Abhinav Aggarwal	National Commission decisions holding that where no financial loss is suffered by an educational institution due to a student's discontinuation, the student may be entitled to a refund of fees.	The District Commission relied on these National Commission authorities to find deficiency and unfair trade practice and to direct refund. The appellate court noted these were the precedents the District Forum relied upon but found that the District Forum nevertheless lacked jurisdiction given higher authority to the contrary.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate bench first considered its jurisdiction to hear disputes involving educational institutions under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court identified the central legal question as whether education provided by institutions falls within the Act's ambit.

The Court examined binding Supreme Court authority beginning with Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) which held education is not a commodity and educational institutions do not provide a "service" for consumer forum purposes. It noted that this dictum predated the District Forum's order by almost three years. The Court further observed that the Supreme Court followed and applied Maharshi in P.T. Koshy (SLP dismissed) and reiterated the position in Anupama College of Engineering (2017), where the Supreme Court set aside contrary National Commission orders.

The appellate bench also referenced a National Commission decision (Manu Solanki) which clarified that institutions rendering education, including associated activities, are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, except for coaching institutions — i.e., coaching institutions represent a limited exception.

Having surveyed these authorities, the Court concluded that, except for coaching institutions, educational institutions imparting education and related activities are not amenable to consumer forum jurisdiction. Consequently, the District Commission's order, which adjudicated the refund claim on merits and relied on National Commission authorities favorable to the complainant, was rendered by a forum lacking subject matter jurisdiction.

Because the appellate court found want of jurisdiction, it refrained from considering or deciding the merits of the refund dispute (for example, whether the brochure clause was illogical or whether the university suffered loss). The Court set aside the District Forum's order for lack of jurisdiction and directed administrative steps (return of any FDR with interest, disposal of pending applications).

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The appellate bench set aside the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum's order dated 22.07.2014 and allowed the present appeal. The Court held that, as a general rule, educational institutions (other than coaching institutions) are not within the jurisdiction of consumer forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Direct consequences and practical implications:

The District Forum's refund order in favour of the complainant (dated 22.07.2014) is vacated for want of jurisdiction and therefore ceases to be operative pursuant to this appeal.
The appellate court expressly did not decide the merits of the underlying refund claim; the merits must be adjudicated by a tribunal or court having competent jurisdiction (if any).
Any Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) filed as statutorily required shall be returned to the Appellant along with any accrued interest to date, and pending applications are disposed of in terms of the appellate judgment.
The Court's reasoning reaffirms and applies the Supreme Court line of authority that education (except coaching) is not a service under the Consumer Protection Act — a jurisdictional bar which limits consumer fora from entertaining similar disputes against ordinary educational institutions.

The opinion does not undertake a fresh merits determination of the fee-refund dispute and does not set out an alternative forum to decide the underlying claim; it confines itself to the question of jurisdiction and disposes of the appeal on that basis.

Judgment delivered by: Hon'ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) on 07.02.2023. Bench also included Ms. Pinki, Member (Judicial).

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

TERI UNIVERSITY v. MS. NIKITA JAIN

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

Date of Institution: 27.08.2014 Date of hearing: 14.11.2022 Date of Decision: 07.02.2023 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 848/2014

IN THE MATTER OF

TERI UNIVERSITY,

THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,

10, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,

VASANT KUNJ,

NEW DELHI-110070.

(Through: Ms. Anju Bhushan, Advocate)

…Appellant

VERSUS

MS. NIKITA JAIN,

D/O MR. PRADEEP JAIN, R/O HOUSE NO. C-8/8626,

VASANT KUNJ,

NEW DELHI-110070. …Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

(PRESIDENT)

HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the parties.

PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:

"The complainant took admission to the M.Sc (Economics) programme 2012 from OP on 02. 07. 12. The OP invited her to deposit fees for the first semester of the said course, a sum of Rs. 53,955/- vide letter dated 02.07.12 (Annexure-1). Accordingly, the complainant submitted the fees for the first semester with the OP on 07.07.12 for admission to the course and was issued the Registration Number-1202 0924. The complainant was subsequently selected by the Jawaharlal Nehru University and on 30.07.12., she requested the OP to cancel her admission and refund the deposited amount in an e-mail and did not attend the classes in the OP University. It is alleged by the complainant that on 31.07.12 the Registrar of OP University informed her via e-mail that the university would be unable to refund the loos deposited by the complainant as the programme for which she had taken, admission had already commenced on 23.07.12.

Since she was late in requesting for cancellations of admission, that they would not be able to refund her deposited amount towards fees of first semester. However, as per rules they would refund only a sum of Rs. 7000/- which was towards the security deposit. The complainant getting no help from the OP University approached this Forum and filed the present complaint on 04. 09. 12 Under Section 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and requested for directions to the OP to refund the fee deposited by her for

the first semester i.e. Rs 53,955/- in totality."

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 22.07.2014, whereby it held as under:

"Bare perusal of the documents placed on record by the OP (Annexure RW 1/3) show that the clause number of Information Brochure annexed by the OP themselves which has been marked as Refund clause states that -

22 Refund of fees-

The fee/other charges deposited by the students against the first semester programme fee will be refundable after deduction of Rs. 1000/ if the student applies for cancellation of his/her allotted seat on or before 15 days of the Commencement of the respective programme (ie, latest by 4.30 PM on 08 July 2012). No request for the refund of fees will be entertained after commencement of the respective programme except refund pertaining to security deposit.

By their own admission the course opted by the complainant, M.Sc (Economics) commenced on 23.07.12 and she requested a refund of her fees deposited on

30.07. 12 i.e. within seven days of commencement of the course.

Hence, it is proved without and iota of doubt that the OP have been deficient in service by not refunding the fees to the complainant which as per their own rules and regulations is refundable minus Rs. 1000/- if the student applies for cancellations on or before 15 days of commencement of the course. Here, in this case OP have allegedly commenced the course on 23.07.12 exactly on the 15 day of the deposit of the fees so as to disentitle the complainant to claim the refund. However, it is admitted by them that the complainant asked for refund via email on 30.07.12 without having attended any classes with the OP. The clause in the brochure even otherwise is illogical and un-considerable which allow 15 days to ask for the refund but fixed the last date as 08.07.12, when the fee is deposited only on 07.07.12. Such a practice is nothing bu

Unfair Trade Practice to swindle the students of their deposits which has been severely depreciated by the UGC directing the educational institutes to return the fee collected which proportionate deduction of monthly fee even if a student withdraws after joining the course. It is not denied by the OP that the complainant has not attended any classes. She has deposited the fee only on 07.07.12 and then withdrew on 30.07.12. In a catena of decisions, Honorable National commission has held that where no financial loss is suffered by the educational institutions due to discontinuation of course by the student in the related academic year, the student is entitled to get a refund of the fees said. Reliance is placed by the complainant on two such decisions reported as Sandeep Pal Singh V/s Punjab Agricultural University & Ors IV (2011) CPJ 338 (NC) and Revised Petition Number-1995 of 2008 in the case of Punjab Technical. University versus Abhinav Aggarwal.

In view of the above stated Legal positions, we are of considered view that denying refund of the entire fee deposited by the complainant with the OP tantamounts to Unfair Trade Practice as well as deficiency in service. Allowing the complaint, we direct to OP to refund the complainant a sum of Rs. 52,955/- retaining Rs. 1000/- only, of the entire fee deposited by the complainant. If this amount is not paid within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order OP shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum thereon till payment. No order as to cost or compensation in the facts-circumstances of this case."

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred the present Appeal contending that the Appellant immediately agreed to refund the refundable deposits of Rs.7000/- as per terms and conditions contained in the information brochure 2012-2013 as well as letter dated 02.07.2012. Moreover, he contended that since the Respondent has withdrawn his candidature after the commencement of the programme, it was not possible to fill

up the vacant seat due to which the Appellant has suffered financial loss. Pressing the aforesaid contention, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the District Commission.

4. The Respondent, on the other hand, failed to file the reply to the present Appeal even after been given multiple opportunities.

5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for both the parties.

6. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is necessary to discuss whether the jurisdiction to adjudicate a case involving an issue with respect to an Educational Institution can be decided by a Consumer Commission within the four corners of the Consumer Protection Act.

7. The main question for consideration before us is whether education being imparted by the institutions is covered within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act

8. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to refer to the case titled as

Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur reported at (2010) 11 SCC 159, wherein it has been held as under:

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.

9. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532/2012 titled P.T. KOSHY & ANR. Vs. ELLEN CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS. dated 09.08.2012,

wherein it was observed:

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 conmmodity. 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.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

10. Further, in Civil Appeal No. 17802 of 2017 titled as Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar & Ors. decided on 02.11.2017, after taking into consideration the aforesaid two dictas, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of this

Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur [(2010) 11 SCC 159]. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. The order reads as follows:

"In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. 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.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the special leave petition is dismissed.

In view of the consistent opinion expressed by this Court, the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 3571/2013 and Revision Petition No. 807/2017 are not in accordance with the decision

of this Court and are therefore set aside. The civil appeals are allowed.

11. It is noteworthy that the dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), was delivered on 19.07.2010, i.e. almost three years before the impugned order, despite which, the District Forum went on to adjudicate the case on merits, without having the subject matter jurisdiction.

12. Moreover, the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of

Manu Solanki and Ors. vs. Vinayaka Mission University and Ors.

reported at I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC), has 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."

13. Hence, from the aforesaid pronouncements, it is clear that except for the Coaching Institution, the other institutions, imparting education and connected activities, are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions. Consequently, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum suffers from infirmity and is not based on proper appreciation of law and the same is set aside for want of jurisdiction to adjudicate the same as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

14. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the case since the same has to be decided before a court having the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate.

15. Therefore, we set aside the order dated 22.07.2014, passed by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi - 110017. Consequently, the present Appeal is allowed.

16. FDR, if any, filed as statutorily required, be returned to the Appellant along with the interest accrued till date.

17. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Judgment.

18. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

19. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL)

PRESIDENT

(PINKI)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Pronounced On:

07.02.2023

TERI UNIVERSITY v. MS. NIKITA JAIN

Concise Analytical Summary — First Appeal No. 848/2014 (TERI University v. Ms. Nikita Jain)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (TERI University)

Respondent's Position

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

TERI UNIVERSITY v. MS. NIKITA JAIN

Comments