ENGINEERING INSTITUTION Vs. PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMERS REDRESSALFORUM BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner is a society registered under the societies Registration Act, having its office under the name of 'cad point' situate at silver jubilee building, k.r. circle, Bangalore. It is an educational institution imparting computer education in various fields of software engineering. As on today a good number of students are undergoing training in computer science. The institution consists of very competent teaching staff. One Sri m.k. yuaraj was the working principal-cum-co-ordinator. On some false complaint he was arrested and detained in prison. In his absence, an order came to be passed on the complaint lodged before the district consumer forum. An order came to be passed as per Annexure-D , dated 25-9-1993 whereby the petitioner was directed to refund to the complainants within one month from the date of the Order, amounts paid by them, as shown at internal page 4 (para 8 of the order), with a further direction that petitioner should pay each complainant a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred this writ petition contending:

(2.) elaborating her submission, learned counsel submitted that in the above decision the court while considering the scope of education held that education does not come within the scope of consumer protection act. Regarding the alternative remedy, the court observed as follows in taneja's case, supra:

(3.) Sri murlidher, learned government pleader who was heard for the respondent submitted that as against the order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal lies under Section 15 of the Act, to the state commission. Without exhausting the effective and alternative remedy the petitioner has approached this court. The question of lack of jurisdiction or illegality committed by the district forum while passing the impugned order can very well be agitated before the state commission. According to him the authorities relied on by the petitioner are not binding on this court. Thus arguing he submitted that it is not a fit case to issue rule.