National Consumer Redressal Commission (NCDRC): <\/strong>The Bench of R.K. Agarwal (President and V.K. Jain and M. Shreesha, Members, while taking into consideration a batch of petitions and further referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court, reached to the conclusions that,<\/p>\n
\u201cCoaching Classes cannot fall within the definition of \u2018Education Institutions\u2019.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\u201cAny defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like \u2018Coaching Centres\u2019 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
Facts in the present case are in respect to deficiency of services by an educational institution that is a Dental College for admitting students when it was neither affiliated with the university nor recognized by the Dental Council of India.<\/p>\n
Counsel appearing for the complainants stated that the facts in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital v. Bhupesh Khurana, <\/em>(2009) 4 SCC 473<\/a> relate to deficiency of service on account of non-affiliation and that it does not fall within any deficiency rendered during the \u2018Course of Education\u2019 being imparted \u2018Post Admission\u2019.<\/p>\n
OP University has indulged in deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.<\/p>\n
Analysis and Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n
Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, <\/em>(2009) 8 SCC 483<\/a>,<\/p>\n
Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, <\/em>(2010) 11 SCC 159<\/a>,<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Complainants contended that the ratio of the order has to be interpreted in the sense that it was applicable only to cases which involve \u2018Core Education\u2019 services and not all activities which relate to Educational Institutions and that both\u00a0 Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, <\/em>(2009) 8 SCC 483<\/a> and Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur<\/em> (2010) 11 SCC 159<\/a>, refer to conference of a degree and conduction of an examination, which do not sum up the entire gamut of \u201cEducation\u201d.<\/p>\n
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., <\/em>(1993) 1 SCC 645<\/a>,<\/p>\n
Commission relying on the in Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanta Devi, <\/em>AIR 1987 Patna 191<\/a>, wherein it was held that,<\/p>\n
Thus, the Commission stated that ratio laid down in the last judgment that is Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanta Devi, <\/em>AIR 1987 Patna 191<\/a> has to be followed. It is significant to note here that the ratio in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur<\/em> (2010) 11 SCC 159<\/a>, P.T. Koshy v. Ellen Charitable Trust, <\/em>2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), Prof. K. K. Ramachandran (Supra) and Anupama College of Engineering (Supra) does not address to the aspect of what comprises \u2018Core Education\u2019 and whether all activities related to Education\/ Educational institutions would be excluded from the purview of the Act.<\/p>\n
In view of the above discussion, consumer complaints were dismissed. [Manu Solanki v. Vinayak Mission University, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 7<\/b><\/a>, decided on 20-01-2020]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"