As per the query
This case is fall under the consumer protection Act .The consumer can file a complaint against the any education institution if they are unethical and have a deficiency of services
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in this respect was sufficient to fulfill the requirement of every consumer by providing various reliefs available in the Act. In India diverse groups of consumers are available. The consumer protection law protects the interest of every consumer irrespective of age, s*x, caste, place etc., with respect to all kinds of goods defined under “Sale of Goods Act, 1930” and every kind of services possible to be contemplated as service under the Act 1986.
This Act extends protection against Government body, statutory institutions as well as corporate sectors. The most pragmatic feature of this Act is the recognition of consumers’ right to be informed about the quality, purity, standard and price of goods and services, which is a potential device to prevent exploitation.
Service
The term ‘service’ is defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act:
“service of any descripttion, which is made available to potential users, including the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.
Do Educational Institutions Fall Under the Purview of the Act?
considerable number of decisions delivered by State and National level Consumer Forums are available as of now which protects the right of students with regard to fees, wrong allotment of roll numbers, delay in declaration of results, admission in excess of the allotted quota, misrepresentation about affiliation by the educational institute to various universities etc. The judgments related to the above-mentioned cases clearly indicate that student is a consumer as per the Act and the universities or educational institutes fall within the category of service providers.
But the Supreme Court of India had a differing view. In the case of Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, relying upon all earlier judgments, the Supreme Court held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the 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.
Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, Supreme Court observed that the Education Boards & Universities are not ‘Service Providers’ and the complaints against them are not maintainable.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment in P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., has followed the above views.
Therefore, now the situation is complex and ambiguous. At this juncture, it is of vital importance to analyse the various functions of university/educational institutes to determine that whether the activities of university/educational institutes are classifiable under the conventional definition of service as per section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On the other hand, it is also necessary to assess the definition of the consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act so as to check that the relationship between university and student fits with the conventional relationship of trader/service provider and consumer? If these two criteria are satisfied then it can be said that universities/educational institute come within the ambit of consumer protection law.
Oza Nirav Kanubhai v. Centre Head Apple Industries Ltd.[8], the National Commission held that private educational institutes (i.e. institutes that are not statutorily established) to be classifiable as service providers, and students enrolled therein, or their sponsors, as consumer.
IMPORTANT CASES
Jai Kumar Mittal v. Brilliant Tutorials[9]
In this case, it was held that the supply of defective study materials by an institute can sustain a valid claim against it for deficiency of service.
In Bhupesh Khurana v. Vishwa Budha Parishad[10]
Due to misrepresentation about affiliation, the National Commission held, in respect of the recovery of the fees paid to the institute that the institute was liable to refund the fees, having lured the students to enroll in it through deceitful tactics.
CONCLUSION
In view of the above discussions, it is proved that with regard to application of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is justified in case of educational activity or service rendered by the University/educational institutes. It is supported equally well on legal and logical grounds. Students are direct consumer or beneficiary of the service or facility provided by University/educational institutes. All kinds of activities performed by University/educational institutes may not be classifiable as marketable service because of the nature of those particular services but it does not support the complete exclusion of the University/educational institutes from the scope of Consumer Protection Laws.
Therefore, in conclusion, University/educational institutes comes within the ambit of consumer protection law as long as the complaint is genuine on the ground that a legal right or interest of the student is prejudiced due to inefficient and deficient service or unethical trade practice by the University/educational institutes.
