Consumer Case No. 261 Of 2012 &Other Cases
(New Dimensions To “Education As Service”)
Note –The above order is under challenge before the Supreme Court, admitted and notice issued
Supreme Court admits an appeal related to education as service under CP Act
Supreme Court has issued notice on 15.10.2020 in an appeal filed against a judgment of National Consumer Redressal Commission in the matter of Manu Solanki & Ors. V. Vinayaka Mission University decided on 20.1.2020
which raises the jurisdiction issue of Consumer Commissions in education matters in the light of contradictory judgment by the various benches of Supreme Court. National Commission has recently held in a judgment that educational institute are not covered under Consumer protection Act and also coaching centres are not parting education
Legal points –
- Who can be a complainant in education matters?
- Whether incidental activities associated with educational institutes such as swimming ,sports etc are covered under education
- Whether skill development courses/vocational studies are covered under education
- Whether post education after completion, or pre admission, institute renders services.
- Whether coaching centre render education
- What is the definition of educational institute
1. Who can be a complainant in education matters
Education as service has been discussed in the recent judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble National commission which has opened a plethora of issues on Education as service. As many as 25 bunches of cases having number of petitioners and respondents have come to the National Commission from all over the country either in appeals or in Revision petitions for explanations to education as service .
So far as per the Apex courts judgments there are two sets of cases decided on education Firstly with confirming judgment in the matter of Usmania Islamia Academy Of Education V State Of Karnataka AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3724, Writ Petition (C) No. 350 Of 1993 decision on 14.08.2003 by three judges’s bench which was further confirmed by the judgment in case of Bhupesh Khurana v Buddha Dental College & hospital in the year 2004 wherein student considered consumer.
Secondly, another set of cases was following Bihar School Examination Board case decided in the year 2009 and further confirmed by the same Supreme Court in the matter of Maharishi Dayan and University v/s Surjeet Kour case decided in the year 2010 wherein student is not a consumer against examination board or against Universities.
- Student not a consumer
Consumer Case No. 261 Of 2012 Manu Solanki & 8 Ors V/S Vinayaka Mission University, Tamilnadu and likewise cases against universities &Examination board are dismissed following above earlier judgments.
- Student is a consumer
Revision Petitions No. 1731 to 1733 of 2017 Arti Sao & Anr Versus v/s Shakuntala Vidyalaya & 4 Ors. Commission held –“an educational institution would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 above cases Students have been allowed following earlier judgment of Bhupesh Khurana v Budha Dental College & hospital decided in the year 2009 by Supreme Court.
2. Whether incidental activities associated with educational institutes such as swimming ,sports etc are covered under education
Incidental activities of an educational institution not amount to rendering service
Revision Petition No. 1731 To 1733 of 2017
” Defect or deficiency which may arise on account of a student drowning in a swimming pool ,Defect or deficiency in the transportation, Excursion trip not deficient in services
3. Whether skill development courses/vocational studies are covered under education
Vocational courses are not taken up on regular basis, hence not education
Revision Petition Nos. 3383 and 3384 of 2018
Admission in Multimedia Diploma and Certificate Courses Visual Effects, Video, Editing, Graphic Designing and Web Designing,
Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors., 2017 (9) SCC 379 , observed that Vocational Courses are those Courses in which teaching is not on regular basis, can also be termed as job oriented education, hence not education.
4. Whether post education after completion, or pre admission, institute renders services
Post education after completion, or pre admission, institute do not render services.
“Questioning allotment of seats in any specific location after having paid the fees, not consumer”
Revision Petition No. 222 of 2015 Revision Petition No. 222 Of 2015
Neelu Verma versus Blue Mountain College of Teachers Education (NCTE);
Commission held-post education –after completion of course, institute not rendering services
5. Whether coaching centers render education
Conducting coaching classes not ‘education’ – Referred to larger Bench
Revision petition no. 462 of 2013 is directed to be placed before the appropriate bench for deciding it on merits.
Hon’ble Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 537, while dealing with admissions, students, fees and quota seats of professional unaided Educational Institutions, defined ‘Education’ as follows
Coaching Centres cannot be equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a Regulatory Authority and also confer a Degree/Diploma on the student who has passed in the examinations conducted as per the Rules and norms specified in the statute
6. What is the definition of education
P.A. Inamdar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 537, while dealing with admissions, students, fees and quota seats of professional unaided Educational Institutions, defined ‘Education’ as follows:
“Education
“Education” according to Chambers Dictionary is “bringing up or training81. “Education” according to Chambers Dictionary is “bringing up or training;
Strengthening of the powers of body or mind; culture.”
“the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life. What education connotes is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling.”
CONCLUSION
Above judgment is likely to go to Supreme Court for many reasons.
- Incidental activities may not be a part of education but Consumer Protection Act deals with services of all kinds not limited to education.
- Similarly all other vocational courses & coaching centers are rendering services, may not be fit to be called educational institute. The cited cases of Supreme Court comprising seven judge’s bench may not be appropriate when dealing with Consumer Protection Act and services under it. Even if they do not meet the criteria of educational institute, rendering services under consumer protection act does not need it to be necessarily labeled as educational institute. In the latest case of Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh.(2016) 7 SCC 353&Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University., (2015) 16 SCC 530 HELD-
‘Technical definition under UGC ACT cannot be imported into PC ACT’
- Facts of the case in post admission case discussed here in this judgment is little different from Bhupesh Khurana case but grievance is the same-non recognition and non-affiliation of the college as promised. In Bhupesh khurana case, students came ahead before completing the course but in this case after completing it, student came to know that the information was wrong. But impact of such wrong will remain the same ,value of the degree will not be the same as promised ,hence this issue also is likely to go the higher court and post completion theory may be discussed again
