M.Ravindranath & Anr.                                          ...... Petitioners
                                Vs.
The Principal, Mercy College, Palakkad & Anr.    ...... Respondents

Before: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.L.Chaudhry, Member, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member & Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member

C.L.CHAUDHRY, J, MEMBER

          This petition arises from the following facts: 

         The petitioner in this revision petition was a complainant before the District Forum. He filed a complaint against the Principal, Mercy College. The allegations were that the petitioner, Ms. Deepa Ravi had applied to the Mercy College, i.e. the opposite party for admission in B.Sc. course i.e. Mathematics as her first preference. She was called for interview on 10.8.1992 as chance Card No. 8. But, on that day, the Principal of the opposite party informed the complainants that seats in Mathematics main had been filled up as admission up to chance Card No. 7 had been given. The Principal assured the complainant and her father that her chance stood as No. 1 in the Mathematics main course, but offered her admission in Chemistry main which was her second choice. The Principal of the College assured her and her father that she would be given the first seat in Mathematics if any vacancy occurred or there was increase in the seats. Keeping in mind the assurance given by the Principal, the complainant got herself admitted in Chemistry course. It was the case of the complainants that opposite party had provided seats on 10.8.1992 to 4 or 5 students in Mathematics main superceding the merit list in which complainant daughter stood first. The father of Deepa Ravi met the Principal and requested for a seat for his daughter in Mathematics but the opposite party refused to accede to his request. So, the first complainant was compelled to withdraw his daughter, Ms. Deepa Ravi from the Opposite party College and got her admitted in the NSS College, Ottapalam in Mathematics main course. The case set up by the complainant was that Ms. Deepa Ravi was overlooked for admission and other students were admitted without considering the case of the complainant. As a result, the first complainant had to incur huge amounts for the journey of his daughter to Ottapalam for her studies. It was also the case of the complainant that she had paid at the time of admission in Chemistry, the entire fee but they had refunded only some amounts retaining Rs. 250/- with them. Thus, the complainant claimed for refund of Rs. 250/- and also compensation.

        The opposite party contended that the complainant was not a consumer and the dispute was beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Deepa Ravi joined the Chemistry group and she did not make any enquiry later for Mathematics group. So, the Opposite Party thought that she was satisfied with the Chemistry group. Owing to the pressure of necessity, the Management applied for marginal increase of 10 seats in the Mathematics group to the University. In anticipation of sanction, some students were admitted under the Management quota. The complainant was also offered a seat but she did not join. In spite of offering a seat in Mathematics the first complainant applied for transfer certificate and admitted his daughter at Ottappalam N.S.S. College.

        After considering the material placed on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and awarded Rs. 18,000/- as compensation and refund of Rs.250/-. It was observed by the District Forum that the College had admitted 9 students in open merit out of 24 seats and the sequence was not as per the list. The students admitted in Mathematics group were below the rank of Ms. Deepa Ravi. As per the list filed by the college, disparity was seen in admitting the students. The rules pertaining to the admission were not followed by the College. The College admitted some other students in the next vacancy though, Ms. Deepa Ravi was kept in waiting list in Mathematics group. The college did not intimate Ms. Deepa Ravi about the admission and also did not offer her seat in Mathematics which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the College. As the college did not impart education to her, the complainant was entitled to get the refund of entire fee. The complainant had also suffered financial loss due to negligence of the opposite party and the amount was quantified at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of 3 years. The college preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Kerala. State Commission, Kerala which returned the findings that the matter did not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. If the Management or Principal had wrongly admitted the students overlooking the claim of the second complainant that was not a matter which could be agitated before a Consumer Court. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

          Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that imparting of education for consideration is a service which falls within the ambit of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. In this connection, reliance was placed on a judgment of this Commission in the case of Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad and Ors., 2000 CTJ 801 (CP) where the National Commission relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1978 SC - 548 held as under:- "Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in Consumer Protection Act.""

          Relying upon the judgment of this Commission, we hold that imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration is a service and falls within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. State Commission was not right in holding that the matter did not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The view taken by the State Commission is contrary to the decision of this Commission in case of Bhupesh Khurana (Supra). The District Forum after due consideration of the matter came to the finding that there was a deficiency in service. We agree with the findings recorded by the District Forum. As a result, we allow this Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum. No order as to costs.