GANGA RAM CHANDNA Vs. PRINCIPAL DOON PUBLIC SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant's son was admitted to Doon Public School, Paschim Vihar, Delhi on 17.3.88 to the VIth class. The school is being run by a registered private society and as stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it has no connection with the well-known Doon School of Deharadun. In 1993 the said student passed the Board Examination of Xth class securing 62% marks. He sought admission to the next higher class in science subjects. He was denied admission after keeping the matter hanging for about three weeks. According to the complainant admission to the school in 1988 was done by charging Rs.1,000/- as donation which was, infect, an extraction. Admission to the XIth class was denied as a donation of Rs.2,000/- was demanded but the complainant was not willing to pay the same. In order to save an academic year of the student, the complainant withdrew his son after obtaining School Leaving Certificate on 23.6.93. Apparently he got admission in some other institution. He was put to great mental tension and expenses and he, accordingly, filed a complaint before District Forum-II on 21.6.93. The complaint was contested. By the impugned order, District Forum-II dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant failed to lead any evidence to show that any student with lesser marks had been given admission in the science subjects on payment of Rs.2,000/- as donation. Aggrieved by the order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Francis Paul, Advocate for the respondent.

(3.) The first contention of Mr. Paul is that the subject of education is outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the FORA constituted under the Act have, thus, no jurisdiction. Mr. Paul placed reliance on a decision of learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Nirmal Teneja and Another V/s. Calcutta District Forum and Others,1992 2 CPJ 591. The contention of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, on the other hand, is that there is ample authority for the proposition that education as such is not outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the definition of the word 'service' occurring in Sec.2 (o) of the Act includes education as well. He placed reliance on Tilak Raj V/s. Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani, 1992 1 CPJ 76, A. P. J. School V/s. K. L. Galhotra,1992 2 CPJ 807, A. P. J. School V/s. Sh. M. P. Bhanot Others, 1992 3 CPJ 254, Apeejay School V/s. M. K. Sangal, 1993 1 CPJ 9 The Registrar (Evaluation) Bangalore University V/s. Mrs. Parida Ansari, 1993 3 CPJ 1252 and M. K. Jacob V/s. S. P. Soman and Anr.,1994 1 CPR 625. On a careful consideration of the matter we are of the view that the word 'service' has been defined in Sec.2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act in widest possible terms to mean "service of any description". Admittedly education taken as a whole does not fall within the exclusionary clauses of the definition. The exclusionary clauses relate to (a) rendering of any service free of charge and (b) under a contract of personal service. We are aware that the National Commission has held in the decisions noted hereunder that the facts did not disclose a 'consumer dispute'. These decisions are Registrar, University of Bombay V/s. Mumbai Grahak Pancyhayat; Bombay, 1994 1 CPJ 146 and Joint Sercetary Gujarat Secondary Education Board V/s. Bharat Narottam Thakur, 1994 1 CPJ 187. These are distinguishable. In the first of these decisions the question was whether valuation of answer books is a service. In the second decision referred to above the question was whether conduct of examination by the Education Board amounted to service within the meaning of the Act. In the present case, on the other hand, the question involved is, whether the student could be denied admission to a higher class on passing the Xth class examination from the same very school on the ground that he had failed to secure the cut-off percentage of marks prescribed by the School Management. These decisions, therefore, do not apply to the present case. We have not been referred to any decision of the National Commission to the effect that the whole subject of education including the question of admission to a higher class, when admittedly the student is paying fees, stands excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. We, therefore, hold that the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act has jurisdiction in this case.