Jurisdiction of consumer forums in education matters

         

Its well established law that parting education has been considered as service under Consumer Protection Act. Recently some consumer forums in the country have been rejecting to admit education matter on the basis of one order pronounced by the Hon’ble supreme court two judges bench wherein court did not admit SLP In the matter of P. T. Koshi & others V/S Ellen Charitable Trust & others by referring the case of Maharishi Dayanand University V/S Surjeet Kour 2010(11)SCC 159. Hon’ble Supreme court said that consumer court has no jurisdiction to deal with education matters as held in Maharishi Dayanand University V/S Surjeet Kour 2010(11)SCC 159 It is pertinent to mention here that the above referred case of Maharishi Dayanand University V/S Surjeet Kour 2010(11)SCC 159 is a case in which student had filed a case against university and this is also an established law that student cannot file a case of deficiency in services against statutory body like examination board or university. By not admitting SLP ,supreme court maintained its earlier holding in the case of Bihar Examination Board  V  Suresh Prasad Sinha pronounced by  two judges bench comprising justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Harjeet Singh Bedi  on 13 Feb  2009  & . Maharishi Dayanand University V/S Surjeet Kour 2010(11)SCC 159. The above referred Supreme Court order is pronounced as rejection to  SLP for admission and nothing on facts of the case are discussed in the order because it was a preliminary stage of admission. No order can be made applicable as precedent in future cases unless facts and circumstances are similar.

.

That as per the article 144 of the constitution ,all judgments of Supreme court are binding on all high courts of the states and all judgments of the high court of the state are binding on all lower courts/tribunals/forums and authorities as precedent .However larger bench judgment shall prevail over the bench comprising less number of Judges. On the issue of education concerning refund of fee, charging fee and other administrative functions Honble Supreme Court in the year 2003 in the matter of Usmania  Islamia Academy v / s State of Karnataka ,three  judges bench comprising Justice V N Khare,Justice S N Variyavaha and Chief Justice K G Blaakrishnana pronounced a detailed order on 14.8.2003 held that education is a service by  discussing every aspect covered by the educational institute in providing education to the students. Number of guidelines were issued through this three judges bench order and UGC was directed to frame rules on the basis of this order .UGC then circulated certain guidelines for the institutes that –

•           They cannot retain more than Rs 1000/- as proportionate fee in case student leaves the institute

•           They cannot retain the original certificates also .

•           They cannot demand fee for the entire course ,can only ask fee for one term.

Following this order, again there was Supreme Court ruling in the year 2004 in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana v Budha Dental College & hospital holding college unfair for their misleading information about the college. This theory is being followed by the National Commission till date .

Following above judgment ,two judges judgment cannot overid the larger bench judgment unless set aside by larger bench which has so far not been done.Hence   P. K. Koshi case cannot be a precedent in education matters  and  Usmania  Islamia Academy v / s State of Karnataka still  holds good 

Apex commission National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission is following Usmania  Islamia Academy v / s State of Karnataka  case till date in number of cases in education matters where statutaory functions of university is not involved–

•           Ganga Immigration and Education Services Pvt. Ltd National Commission in their order dated 1.4.2014 held indulging into unfair trade practices for not providing work visa  as per the promises made to the complainants.

•           FITTJEE V/S Sajjan Kumar Gupta ,order dated 21.05.2014 considering complainant as consumer though  institute was not found guilty of collecting admission fee and annual infrastructure fee from the student meaning thereby the matter related to education fall under the jurisdiction of consumer forums.In this case also Islamia Usmania case was considered as precedent and matter was entertained on merits.

•           Indian college of agricultural recognized with Indira Gandhi agricultural university, Raipur (order on 6 Marcch 2016 ) admitted two students Sager Sinhala and Anil Shaun under OBC quota for the year 2010-2011 batch but retained their result for the reason that they failed to provide OBC Certificate and they actually did not belong to OBC. National commission in their order dated 6 March 2014 held the institute guilty of the mistake and directed the institute to pay back the entire fee charged towards the course along with Rs 10,000/- as compensation for loss of time . National commission also directed the institute to deposit Rs 50,000/- to the consumer welfare fund too.

•           Sri Chaitanya educational  Institute  v/s Govind Prasad Rath 11 2016 CPJ 35 NC decided on 7.1.2016 –district forum allowed complaint and directed to refund fee due to withdrawal from institute having supplied  unhygienic food.  Opposite party refused refund and argued before the national commission that the seat remained unfilled but National Commission rejected the plea and upheld district forum order.

 

The above discussion makes it ample clear that –

 

·         Student is a consumer for deficiency in services on the line of  Supreme Court ruling in the year 2004 in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana v Budha Dental College & hospital holding college unfair for their misleading information about the college.

·         Student cannot file a case as consumer under consumer protection act against statutary body ,university or examination board on the line of supreme court judgment in the matter of Bihar examination board Bihar Examination Board  V  Suresh Prasad Sinha in the year 13 Feb  2009  two judges bench comprising justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Harjeet Singh Bedi  in and Maharishi Dayanand University V/S Surjeet Kour 2010(11)SCC 159

 

Statutary functions :                                                               

Conducting examination ,fixing the dates for examination,changing the date sheet,appointing invisilators and paying them for the same ,allotment of roll number,checking the answer sheets and giving numbers  ,declaring the result ,setting criteria for giving admission to a particular course and giving admission or rejecting application etc

Administrative services;

For conducting the examination,if there is any deviation by the institute in the procedure set by the university without information ,that particular institute can be questioned when it had charged fee for coaching and other related matters If the rule is for the student to reach the examination center at 9.OO a.m,it is the discretion of the University to relax it for the reason given or not but not a right of the student.

Students cannot say any thing as to why such dates are fixed for the exams,or why this particular number is allotted or why results are not declared within expected period or why one is not given admission in particular stream when he /she did well in the interview.

But if any institute affiliated or recognized with the university gives certain services other than the functions of the university by charging fee, it is liable for deficiency in services for the same before the consumer forums

If student has a grievance in getting low marks, can get the calculation of the marks re-checked but cannot claim for re-valuation                                                                  

 

 Dr Prem lata

 

Previous

Next