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

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more