Skip to main content

NCDRC: Consumer Forums Do Not Have Jurisdiction Over Educational Institutions

In In  CONSUMER CASE NO. 261 OF 2012, MANU SOLANKI & 8 ORS vs VINAYAKA MISSION UNIVERSITY, reference was made to the NCDRC by the appellants accusing the defendants of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by inducing them and false assurances.

The problem before the NCDRC was the conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court whence in 2010, a division bench of the Supreme Court had in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, examined in detail the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain a Complaint with respect to deficiency of service by Educational Institutions and held that they are not `service providers' and a student who takes an examination is not a `consumer', under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Again in PT Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), whereby it was 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.  Oblivious of these judgments however, another division bench of the Supreme Court in P. Sreenivasulu & Anr. v. P. J. Alexander & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 7003-7004, in 2015, held that Educational Institutions would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that Education is a Service.

NCDRC relied on Amar Singh Yadav & Ors. v. Shanta Devi & Ors., AIR 1987 Patna 191, in which the Supreme Court while deciding the Law of Precedence observed that when there is a direct conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court of coequal Bench, the subordinate Court must follow the judgment which states the law more elaborately and accurately and that the question whether the decision is earlier or later is not material and decided to follow the law laid down in the Maharshi Dayanand University's case as the ruling therein was given on merits and appeared to be more elaborate and accurate.

However, the court noted that none of the above mentioned judgments had answered what comprises 'Core Education' and whether all activities related to Education/ Educational institutions would be excluded from the purview of the Act.

Clarifying the position on this aspect, the Commission has held that 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 not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Article referred: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/consumer-forums-do-not-have-jurisdiction-over-educational-institutions-as-they-do-not-impart-services-holds-ncdrc-read-judgment-151917?infinitescroll=1

Comments

  1. Nikki Singh22 May 2020 at 16:46



    This information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing this information on Education Loan. For Study loan, visit here:
    Overseas Study Loan

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more