1

Consumer Protection Digest

On
Education Cases
Academic service - Spoil of academic carrier of student is no defence in a time barred complaint -Board of
School Education v. Raj Kumar, 1995(2) CPC 388 Hr.
Act of God !o be an act of "od an occurrence s#ould be incapable of bein$ prevented 1991 CPC 58% !.&.
Admission 'dmission of complainant (as set aside b) *niversit) due to ille$ibilit) Complainant in t#e
absence of necessar) +ualification cannot be admitted to t#e course of ,-S Deputy Registrar (Colleges) !D!
"ni#ersity v. Ruchi$a %ain, 2..5(2) CPC /5. Hr.
0'dmission in ,'1S course b) (ron$l) statin$ t#at institution (as affiliated (it# *niversit) 2(ner of institute
3 not t#e principal #eld liable for deficient service &jit Singh Kamra v. Daljit Kaur, 2..3(1) CPC 248 Pb.
0'dmission in -ental 5nstitute on (ron$ representation about affiliation to *niversit) 5nstituted liable for to refund
deposits (it# 186 interest per annum - 1998(1) CPC 222 &.C.
0'dmission in 5nstitution (ron$l) alle$in$ t#at it is affiliated (it# *niversit) Case of ne$li$ence proved 7efund
of fees etc. (it# compensation allo(ed - 1998(1) CPC 25/ Pb.
0'dmission in 5! Course b) misrepresentation Colle$e not affiliated (it# *niversit) Students #eld entitled to
refund of fees (it# compensation 2..3(1) CPC /39 C#d.
--'dmission to #i$#er class in t#e same sc#ool cannot be denied on t#e basis of securin$ minimum percenta$e of
mar8s 1994(2) CPC 539 -el#i
0'fter acceptin$ admission fee from complainant *niversit) revo8ed admission due to not #avin$ necessar)
+ualification *niversit) directed to refund fee (it# interest 2..5(1) CPC /9. Pb.
0Complainant $iven admission in ,.-.S. Course b) concealin$ real stren$t# of students Colle$e aut#orities #eld
liable for causin$ loss to complainant 7efund (it# 186 interest allo(ed 1994(2) CPC 13% &.C.
--Complainant $ot admission in t#e Computer course and paid 7s. 1.9... voluntaril) as admission fee He is not
entitled to refund of fee after 4 mont#s of admission 2..1(2) CPC %81 C#d.
0Complainant paid admission fees for ,.:d. correspondence course 'dmission not $iven b) *niversit)
Complainant entitled to refund of fees paid (it# interest 2../(2) CPC %51 &.C.
0Complainant (it#dra(in$ #is son on #is o(n c#oice Sc#ool 'ut#orities not liable for deficienc) in service -
'rincipal Saint (a#ier)s *igh School v. Sunil Dutt Sharma, 1998(1) CPC 1%5 C#d.
0Complainant;s dau$#ter volunteerl) s#ifted to anot#er Colle$e from 'ppellant;s 5nstitution 'ppellant directed to
refund admission fee (it# 96 interest (it#out compensation 2../(1) CPC 2/3 "u<.
0-eduction in admission fee made b) Sc#ool aut#orities as permitted b) prospectus Consumer aut#orities cannot
interfere in t#e matter - 1994(1) CPC 2%3 Hr.
0"uardian c#an$in$ #is mind about admission of #is c#ild in sc#ool 7efund of admission fee cannot be claimed
as sc#ool aut#orities are not at fault - 199%(2) CPC 2/2 C#d.
01ere p#oto$rap# of ,oard s#o(in$ t#at sc#ool is reco$nised does not prove deficienc) in service on t#e part of
sc#ool aut#orities S+arna Bhushan Sahu v. St! 'aul)s English edium School, 1995(2) CPC /52 2rissa
0&on refund of admission fee of t#e Colle$e is not a deficienc) in service - 1995(1) CPC 18/ &.C.
2nl) t#at amount can be refunded (#ic# is permissible b) rules of prospectus of sc#ool =ora not competent to
c#an$e suc# rules - Raman Bansal v. ,he 'rincipal, Chaman -ati$a, 1998(1) CPC /22 Hr.
02pposite part);s colle$e collectin$ fees for 1aster of Personal 1ana$ement course for (#ic# it (as not
aut#orised to $rant admission Held liable for deficienc) in service - 2...(2) CPC 522 1.P.
0Parties a$reed for refund of admission fee &o interference in appeal (arranted 1995(2) CPC 28/ &.C.
07efund Complainant paid 7s. 8... as admission fees in ,.-.S. course 'fter <oinin$ anot#er -ental Colle$e
claimed refund of fee Held not entitled to refund in terms of prospectus - 1999(2) CPC /4. H.P.
07efund of fee (as declined as per t#e norms laid do(n b) t#e Pan<ab *niversit) &o deficient service on t#e part
of t#e respondent proved S+ati &neja (s!) v. De# Smaj College for .omen, 2..2(2) CPC /94 C#d.
0Student after pa)in$ 7s. 5.9... as admission fee to 2pposite Part) s#ifted to anot#er colle$e voluntaril) 2.P.
not liable to refund admission fee 2../(1) CPC 383 C#d.
2
07espondent colle$e c#ar$ed 7s. 1/9... and 7s. 29... for courses not dul) reco$ni>ed b) an) universit) 2P
directed to refund entire amount (it# 7s. 259... as compensation and 7s. 1.9... as punitive dama$es 2..8(2) CPC /8/
H.P.
Admission fees ? Complainant deposited 7s. /.9... for admission in 1ana$ement course of 2P
institute ? 'fter / da)s #e $ot admission in anot#er institute He is entitled to refund 45 6 of deposited amount
2..9(2) CPC 544 *.P.
' student voluntaril) (it#dra(in$ from t#e colle$e is entitled to refund of tuition fees and #ostel c#ar$es not
admission fee &darsha Residential College v. /arayana Rao /oule, 1998(1) CPC 81 '.P.
0'll applicants e@cept complainant (ere ordered refund of securit) for sc#ool admission from respondent sc#ool
Complainant also deserves t#e refund of t#e amount 199%(2) CPC 1%5 Hr.
's per 7e$ulations of 2P colle$e fee once paid (as refundable if seat vacated b) t#e complainant (as filled up b)
ot#er student before last date of admission ? Complainant9 unable to prove t#is fact not entitled to refund of fee 2.1.(3)
CPC %22 Pb.
Petitioner student did not attend classes even for a sin$le da) and #ad (it#dra(n candidature before
second counselin$ ? 7efund of fees of 7s. 293.9...A (it# 126 p.a. interest ordered 2..9(3) CPC 54 &.C.
Student deposited admission fee but left t#e colle$e of #is o(n (ill ? Claim for refund of fees not
<ustified ? =orfeiture of fees ordered 2..9(2) CPC 43% Pb.
Admission fees refund- :ducational 5nstitute is bound to refund admission fees b) deductin$ 7s. 19... onl)
or t#e proportionate amount of fees 2.1.(2) CPC %19 &.C.
Admission in dental college ? Student deposited amount of 7s. 4%925.A (it# t#e Colle$e but s#ifted
to anot#er Colle$e ? =ees not refundable as per terms of prospectus ? 2nl) securit) amount etc. amountin$ to
7s. 259...A ordered to be refunded 2..9(3) CPC 4/ Pb.
Admission of students - 5n matters relatin$ to #oldin$ of e@amination *niversit) disc#ar$es its statutor)
function ? ,ut in t#e case of admission9 it is a service provider for consideration ? Complaint #eld maintainable 2.1.(3)
CPC 3.4 *ttra8#and
Advertisement ? 5nstitute publis#ed false advertisement ? Colle$e neit#er affiliated nor reco$ni>ed for
impartin$ education ? 7espondents lost t(o academic )ears ? -eficient service proved ? 5nstitute directed to
pa) 7s. 1 lacs as compensation and costs of 7s. 1 lac8 eac# 2..9(1) CPC %./ S.C.
2P publis#ed an advertisement in ne(spaper offerin$ a course (it# 1..6 <ob $uarantee ? 5ssued certificates
proved to be false ? *nfair !rade Practice proved ? :ntitled to relief 2.1.(3) CPC /43 &.C.
Appeal - 'n appeal b) an a$$rieved person is maintainable a$ainst an e@ parte order under Consumer Protection
'ct - 2..3(2) CPC 199 C#d.
0Sin$le order passed on four complaints Boint appeal a$ainst impu$ned order not permissible - D!&!-! 0nstitute of
'hysiotherapy v. iss! /a#leen Kaur, 1998(1) CPC 25/ Pb.
'n appeal can be treated as revision b) State Commission - Board of Secondary Education, adhya 'radesh v.
/a#neet Kumar, 1994(1) CPC 3%4 Pb.
Attachment - 1- of colle$e did not deposit amount of colle$e 'ttac#ment of colle$e propert) not proper but
personal propert) of 2P s#ould be attac#ed 2..8(1) CPC %8. &.C.
B.D.S. course Classes of ,-S (ere not started even after receivin$ 7s. 191299.. as admission fee
7efund (it# 126 P.'. interest alon$(it# 7s. 89... as compensation directed to be paid to complainant
1999(2) CPC %55 C#d.
07efund Complainant paid 7s. 8... as admission fees in ,.-.S. course 'fter <oinin$ anot#er -ental
Colle$e claimed refund of fee Held not entitled to refund in terms of prospectus 1999(2) CPC /4. H.P.
Breach of School Rules ? Student (as removed from sc#ool for nonpa)ment of fees ? 's per 7ule 259 it (as
compulsor) to deposit fees b) 1.t# of ever) mont# ? Compensation a(arded b) =ora belo( set aside ? Complaint
dismissed 2.1.(3) CPC /19 &.C.
Bus Pass - Student (ron$full) denied concessional bus pass Held9 entitled to bus pass (it# compensation of 7s.
3915. State of *aryana v. Sandeep Singh9 1995(2) CPC 38/ Hr.
Capitation fee -eduction of 16 from capitation fee9 (#en admission is refused to student is not <ustified
Director of &dmissions, Dr! ,!!&! 'ai 1oundation, anipal v. Dr! Radha /arayanan, 1995(1) CPC 235 Cer.
3
Coaching classes Complainant after pa)in$ coac#in$ fee of 7s. 219...A (it#dre( in midstream and
demanded refund of admission fee ? 2P not liable to refund t#e admission fee as complainant #ad violated t#e
terms of a$reement ? 2.1.(1) CPC 5%3 &.C.
College admission Cancellation of admission after receivin$ necessar) amount in arbitrar) manner Colle$e
aut#orities directed to pa) 7s. 249... as compensation and cost for deficienc) in service 'rincipal, D&- College, Sector
23, Chandigarh v. Rajesh Kumar, 2..8(2) CPC 222 C#d.
0Complainants (ere $iven admission for ,-S course b) misrepresentation Course (as not reco$nised b) -ental
Council of 5ndia :ac# complainant #eld entitled to refund of amount (it# 126 interest and 7s. 2.9... 2..1(1) CPC
1/. &.C.
0-eposit of 7s. 1 lac as securit) and 7s. 89... as tution fee b) complainant (#o (as relieved b) 2P (it# its
consent Complainant entitled to refund of securit) deposits (it# 186 interest 2..3(2) CPC /88 Pb.
College fees Student (it#dra(in$ voluntaril) from colle$e Cannot claim refund of fees paid to t#e colle$e
K! Si#a 'rasad v. Correspondent, Smt! 4! Krishna -eni Rao, 2../(1) CPC 21% '.P.
--'ppellant student claimed refund of total deposited fees after mi$ratin$ to ot#er colle$e of #er o(n Dill
? !otal amount not refundable ? 2nl) refund of 156 amount en#anced ille$all) (as reasonable ? 2.1.(1) CPC
398 Pb.
Compensation - ' student (#ile on sc#ool picnic on ban8 of river (as dro(ned due to ne$li$ence of
accompan)in$ teac#er 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 39389... for s#eer ne$li$ence 2..4(1) CPC 119 "u<.
0'ns(er boo8 not evaluated properl) despite deposit of fee 2.P. directed to evaluate ans(er boo8 and to pa)
compensation of 7s. 39... 2..%(1) CPC 33% 7a<.
0,oard failed to provide roll number despite pa)ment of re+uisite fee causin$ mental a$on) to complainant ,oard
directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 1.9... to complainant 'unja5 School Education Board v. 6urpreet Singh, 2..4(2)
CPC 19. C#d.
0,ullet in<ur) caused b) $un of Principal of 'cadem) durin$ student;s tour Case does not come under ambit of
Consumer Protection 'ct Karnail Singh v. Sri Dashmesh &cademy, 2..5(1) CPC /8% Pb.
0Cancellation of admission after receivin$ necessar) amount in arbitrar) manner Colle$e aut#orities directed to
pa) 7s. 249... as compensation and cost for deficienc) in service 'rincipal, D&- College, Sector 23, Chandigarh v.
Rajesh Kumar, 2..8(2) CPC 222 C#d.
0Certificate of computer trainin$ found not $enuine as 5nstitution of 2P (as not reco$ni>ed 2P directed to refund
amount of fee (it# compensation and cost of 7s. 1%%.. "ptron &cademy of Computer 7earning ("ptron &C7) v. anjit
Singh, 2..4(2) CPC /%4 C#d.
0Compensation s#ould be determined 8eepin$ into vie( seriousness of in<uries and status of complainant Rajesh
ani Kaushi$, &d#ocate v. *aryana 0nstitute of 1ine &rts, 1999(1) CPC 5.. Hr.
0Compensation s#ould be determined ta8in$ into account t#e actual loss suffered b) complainant 1998(1) CPC
25/ Pb.
Complainant could not appl) for t#e post of lecturer in "ovt. Colle$e due to dela) in declaration of #er result of
computer course ? 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 1.25 lacs (it# 96 interest 2..9(3) CPC %.9 H.P.
0Complainant demandin$ compensation of 7s. 5 lacs (it#out an) sound proof of loss suffered 7s. 1.9... (as
found sufficient to meet t#e ends of <ustice ,ila$ Raj v. *aryana School Education Board, Bhi+ani9 1992 CPC %1 Hr.
--Complainant en<o)in$ entertainment of electrical s(in$ sustained in<ur) due to its detac#ment 2(ner and driver
of s(in$ includin$ 2r$ani>er and -irector of fair are liable to pa) t#e compensation 2..8(1) CPC %52 &.C.
Complainant not allo(ed to appear in e@amination as #is roll number (as (ron$l) allotted to anot#er student ?
*niversit) directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 2.9... (it# cost ? 2..9(1) CPC 32 &.C.
0Complainant (as forced to discontinue t(o )ears computer course after % mont#s a$ainst a$reed terms 2pposite
Part) liable to refund total fee (it# 186 interest %a+ahar 6oyal, anaging Director, /!0!0!,! v. &shu Rani, 2../(1)
CPC 54/ Pb.
Complainant (as forced to pa) 7s. 23.. as tuition fee ? :ven Sc#ool Eeavin$ Certificate (as denied ? 2P
directed to pa) a sum of 7s. 5.9... (it# 96 p.a. interest 2.1.(2) CPC 418 H.P.
Complainant;s dau$#ter denied admission in ,. !ec# course as s#e could not pa) ille$al mone) of 7s. 3 lacs
demanded b) 2P ? 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 259... alon$(it# cost of 7s. 59... ? 2..9(1) CPC %9 -el#i
0Complainants (ere $iven admission for ,-S course b) misrepresentation Course (as not reco$nised b) -ental
Council of 5ndia :ac# complainant #eld entitled to refund of amount (it# 126 interest and 7s. 2.9... 2..1(1) CPC
1/. &.C.
/
0Complaint a$ainst a sc#ool for renderin$ deficient service to t#e students is maintainable &peejay School v.
!K! Sangal, 1993 CPC 221 -el#i
0Complaint a$ainst colle$e and universit) *niversit) not liable to pa) compensation (#en it is alread) paid b)
colle$e adhyami$ Shi$sha 'arishad v. Ra#indera Kumar, 2../(2) CPC 513 *.P.
-ifference in date of birt# s#o(n in provisional certificate and t#at $iven in ori$inal certificate causin$ loss of
emplo)ment ? 2P directed to correct date of birt# (it# cost and compensation of 7s. 2%9... ? 2..9(1) CPC %82 &.C.
0:nrollment could not be issued to t#e complainant relatin$ to admission in 1.F1 class due to ne$li$ence of t#e
colle$e Colle$e directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 259... for ne$li$ence 2..%(1) CPC 33. Hr.
2P c#ar$ed tuition fee of 7s. 359... for '$riculture 1ana$ement course of % mont#s from 15 complainants (#o
spent 7s. 2/9... eac# on ot#er trainin$ e@penses ? 5nstitution (as not reco$ni>ed b) &PC as told ? 2P directed to refund
fee (it# compensation 2.1.(3) CPC 8/ H.P.
2P c#ar$ed tuition fee of 7s. %9... b) falsel) statin$ t#at institution (as affiliated (it# t#e *niversit) ?
'mount of compensation of 7s. 59... bein$ inade+uate t#e same is en#anced to 7s. 3.9... 2..9(3) CPC 5.3
Car.
02P denied permission to student to sit in e@amination despite pa)ment of c#ar$es (#ic# caused loss of one
precious )ear ,oard directed to pa) compensation 7s. 259... (it# 126 interest 2..4(1) CPC /3 &.C.
2P failed to print sc#ool souvenir in time despite receivin$ advance mone) of 7s. /.9...A 2P directed to refund
deposited amount (it# 4.56 p.a. interest for deficienc) in service ? 2.1.(1) CPC 385 Pb.
02pposite Part) failed to provide standard trainin$ to students as a$reed -irected to refund fees (it#
compensation and cost 0no#ators 0nfotech 7td! v. 'oonam Sachde#a, 2../(1) CPC %/1 -el#i
07espondent colle$e c#ar$ed 7s. 1/9... and 7s. 29... for courses not dul) reco$ni>ed b) an) universit) 2P
directed to refund entire amount (it# 7s. 259... as compensation and 7s. 1.9... as punitive dama$es 2..8(2) CPC /8/
H.P.
7espondent falsel) admitted petitioner in ,'1S de$ree course t#at it (as affiliated to Pun<ab *niversit) and
approved b) CC51 ? Petitioner9 #eld entitled to refund of admission fee (it# 126 interest and 7s. 2 lacs compensation ?
2..9(1) CPC /4/ Pb.
0Stud) material not sent to student in time Eot of time spent in translation (or8 2pposite Part) liable to pa)
reduced compensation of 7s. 59... 'unja5i "ni#ersity, 'atiala v. *imanshu 'athania, 2../(2) CPC 98 Pb.
Compensation ith refund of fee 2P colle$e (asted t(o )ears of 1% students b) falsel) statin$ t#at t#e
colle$e (as reco$ni>ed but it (as not so ? 2P directed to refund total deposited amount (it# compensation of 7s.
%.9...A to eac# student ? 2.1.(1) CPC /92 *.P.
Complaint ? Complaint a$ainst *niversit) not maintainable accordin$ to latest decision of t#e Supreme Court ?
Complaint allo(ed to be (it#dra(n (it# libert) to approac# ot#er competent court 2.1.(2) CPC 3%/ H.P.
Comple! "uestion Comple@ +uestion relatin$ to :ducational 5nstitute involved in t#e complaint Proper
remed) lies in Civil Court and not under Consumer Protection 'ct 7!R! Budaniya v. %agdish Kumar 6arg, 2../(1) CPC
%% C#d.
Computer Course ' Computer Compan) failed to deliver -iploma in computer after c#ar$in$ fee from
trainees Computer Compan) and its =ranc#ise Centre directed to refund fee (it# costs 1999(2) CPC //. Pb.
0'fter continuin$ course of computer it (as revealed t#e 5nstitute (as not affiliated (it# -el#i *niversit) Half of
fee paid directed to be refunded to student 2..5(1) CPC 5.2 -el#i
0Complainant #as to leave computer course in bet(een due to lac8 of +ualified facult) 2P directed to pa) a sum
of 7s. 195.. (it# cost &mit Kumar %uneja v. /00, 7td!9 2..%(1) CPC %13 -el#i
0Complainant leavin$ classes of #is o(n after one )ear Held not entitled to refund of tuition fee 1999(1) CPC 14
Hr.
0Computer classes not started despite t#e pa)ment of fee b) complainant Computer 2r$anisation directed to
refund fees (it# 156 interest alon$ (it# 7s. 259... as compensation -i#e$ 6arg v. Rajee# Kumar, 1998(2) CPC 5/.
C#d.
0&o commitment (as proved to #ave ben made b) respondent to provide <ob after completion of computer course
7elief declined to appellant 199/(1) CPC 2%9 &.C.
Computer Education - 5nstitution closed computer classes before completion of course Students #eld
entitled to refund of fees ohansingh Siddhu v. Kumari Sarla Bad$ul, 1998(2) CPC %5 1.P.
0*nilateral c#an$e in course of stud) b) 5nstitution from de$ree to diploma course 7efund of fees (it# 186
interest ordered 1998(2) CPC 13 C#d.
5
Computer training - Certificate of computer trainin$ found not $enuine as 5nstitution of 2P (as not
reco$ni>ed 2P directed to refund amount of fee (it# compensation and cost of 7s. 1%%.. "ptron &cademy of
Computer 7earning ("ptron &C7) v. anjit Singh, 2..4(2) CPC /%4 C#d.
Consumer ' student appearin$ in e@amination #eld b) *niversit) cannot be #eld to be a consumer under CP
'ct &or *niversit) #as rendered service for consideration 2..4(1) CPC 22% &.C.
,o) suffered burnt in<uries (it# crac8er in #ostel ? Complainant;s parents pa)in$ fee to sc#ool aut#orities !#us
#e is consumer 2.1.(2) CPC //9 '.P.
*ndue dela) in declaration of result of computer course ? Complainant is consumer under CP 'ct
2..9(3) CPC %.9 H.P.
0Complaint a$ainst private colle$e for violatin$ terms of contract of service for dela) in pa)ment of $ratuit)
amount Complainant is not a consumer 2..%(2) CPC 439 Hr.
0' student availin$ service of 2P b) pa)in$ tuition fee as consideration is a consumer under CP 'ct 2..%(2) CPC
391 -el#i
*niversities (#ile conductin$ t#e e@aminations and evaluatin$ t#e mar8s disc#ar$e t#eir statutor) duties and are
not consumer under CP 'ct ? 2.1.(1) CPC 2.% &.C.
0' student sufferin$ due to (ron$ declaration of result is a consumer to claim compensation from *niversit)
1993 CPC 38% 1a#a.
0,oard committed irre$ularit) in #oldin$ t#e e@amination and in declaration of result Complainant is a consumer
under t#e C.P. 'ct 2..%(1) CPC 33% 7a<.
0-ela) in declaration of result 1atter does not come under ambit of CP 'ct :@aminee not a consumer 2..8(1)
CPC 5.9 &.C.
0Complainant #ad (ritten manuscript of #is o(n volition Services not #ired b) 2.P. 2.P. not obli$ed to pa)
fello(s#ip amount as #e is not a consumer '!S! Sa+hney v. 'rincipal S! K! Bhattacharya, ,echnical ,eachers) ,raining
0nstitute, 2../(1) CPC 159 C#d.
07esult declared t#rou$# $a>ette notification but student failed to consult t#e $a>ette *niversit) bein$ not a
consumer is not liable for an) ne$li$ence 2..4(2) CPC 553 Pb.
0Sc#ool fee deposited b) fat#er of minor son =at#er bein$ a beneficiar) is covered b) definition of consumer
illennium School Bharatiya &cademic Society v. %agan 7al Bad+ani, 2../(2) CPC 3/3 C.".
0Complaint a$ainst dela) in declaration of result b) :ducation ,oard Complainant not a consumer 7elief
declined 2../(2) CPC 5.% &.C.
--"rievance a$ainst non implementation of order of transfer b) Superior 2fficer of :ducation -epartment -ispute
is not covered under Consumer 'ct 2..2(2) CPC /.1 2rissa
0' person desirin$ to do tec#nolo$) course for earnin$ #is liveli#ood b) self emplo)ment is a consumer Sunny
6arg v. 8!0!7!S! 7imited, 2..5(1) CPC //1 C#d.
Consumer dispute :ducation or matter of refund of fees b) an 5nstitution does not come under t#e #eadin$
of GConsumer -isputeH Consumer &ssociation of *aryana v. D!&!-! 'u5lic School9 1999(1) CPC 33 Hr.
--Complaint a$ainst :ducation ,oard for nonpa)ment of $ratuit) and pension 1atter does not relate to a
consumer dispute 7elief declined State of Har)ana t#rou$# D!'!E!9! v. Sumitra De#i9 2..5(2) CPC 3%3 Hr.
' universit) in rec#ec8in$ of mar8s etc. is not a service provider ? &o relief is permissible a$ainst *niversit) as
per latest la( laid do(n b) t#e 'pe@ Court 2.1.(2) CPC 5./ &.C.
Complaint a$ainst *niversit) not maintainable accordin$ to latest decision of t#e Supreme Court ? Complaint
allo(ed to be (it#dra(n (it# libert) to approac# ot#er competent court 2.1.(2) CPC 3%/ H.P.
Course of #echnolog$ - 2pposite Part) failed to ma8e necessar) provision for completion of tec#nolo$)
course despite pa)ment of 7s. 11.59 lacs Complainant is a consumer to claim relief 2..5(1) CPC //1 C#d.
Course ith placement 2P publis#ed an advertisement in ne(spaper offerin$ a course (it# 1..6 <ob
$uarantee ? 5ssued certificates proved to be false ? *nfair !rade Practice proved ? :ntitled to relief 2.1.(3) CPC /43
&.C.
Date of Birth - Complainant ran from pillar to post but #is date of birt# (as not corrected in Hi$# sc#ool
certificate :ducation ,oard and #eadmaster directed to pa) total sum of 7s. 2%9... as compensation and cost (it#
correction of date of birt# 2../(2) CPC 288 2rissa
-ifference in date of birt# s#o(n in provisional certificate and t#at $iven in ori$inal certificate causin$ loss of
emplo)ment ? 2P directed to correct date of birt# (it# cost and compensation of 7s. 2%9... ? 2..9(1) CPC %82 &.C.
%
Complainant did not produce ori$inal document to prove actual date of birt# ? 7eport of Secretar) of ,oard
i$nored b) =ora belo( ? 7elief $ranted to complainant cannot be sustained ? 2rder set aside 2.1.(2) CPC %.1 S.C.
-ate of birt# mentioned in sc#ool certificate #as precedence on t#e date of birt# mentioned in t#e drivin$ license
for determination of insurance claim 2.1.(2) CPC 348 &.C.
Deficienc$ in Service - 2.P. institution (illin$ to impart education to complainant (#o left t#e colle$e of #er
o(n (ill &o case of deficienc) in service is made out in t#e case 2..8(2) CPC 1% Pb.
0Sc#ool aut#orit) refused to issue sc#ool leavin$ certificate to mot#er of son as matter of $uardians#ip (as
sub<udice 'ut#orities committed no fault - 2..3(1) CPC %.1 1a#a.
Complainant (as unable to prove t#at 2P refused to issue duplicate certificate of 1.Sc de$ree ? 5f #is plea is
accepted #o( #e <oined t#e service of teac#er (it#out t#e documents ? 2P not liable for deficienc) in service ? 2.11(1)
CPC 4.3 S.C.
Complainant;s dau$#ter denied admission in ,. !ec# course as s#e could not pa) ille$al mone) of 7s. 3 lacs
demanded b) 2P ? 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 259... alon$(it# cost of 7s. 59... ? 2..9(1) CPC %9 -el#i
7oll number not issued b) 2P 5nstitution despite pa)ment of re+uisite fee ? 2P #eld liable for deficienc)
in service 2.1.(2) CPC 422 Pb.
Dela$ in decision Consumer disputes could not be decided (it#in t#ree to five mont#s as provided b) la( due
to nonappointment of members of Commission "overnment is $uilt) of deficienc) in service 2..4(1) CPC 11% -el#i
Dela$ in report - Complainant;s result (as dela)ed as t#e complainant failed to submit pro<ect report of
Computer course Colle$e not liable for deficient service - &marjit Kaur v. &ppejay College of 1ine &rts, 1998(2) CPC
1% Pb.
Dela$ in result ? Complainant could not appl) for t#e post of lecturer in "ovt. Colle$e due to dela) in
declaration of #er result of computer course ? 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 1.25 lacs (it# 96
interest 2..9(3) CPC %.9 H.P.
Complaint a$ainst :ducation ,oard for dela)in$ result for more t#an 3A/ mont#s ? Consumer =ora #ave no
<urisdiction as it is a statutor) function disc#ar$ed b) a statutor) bod) ? 2.11(1) CPC /42 &.C.
Dental College - Classes closed due to student;s stri8e Complainant entitled to refund of total fee (it# 156
interest - Sriram Chandran v. R!D! 'ennathur, 1999(1) CPC 2%1 Cer.
Diploma Course - -eduction of 16 from capitation fee9 (#en admission is refused to student is not
<ustified - 1995(1) CPC 235 Cer.
0=ull s)llabus not covered in t(o )ears -iploma Course despite pa)ment of fee 7s. 3%9... 7espondent
liable for deficienc) in service Case remanded 2..5(1) CPC 41 C#d.
Diploma Course not recogni%ed - 7eco$nition of G2H level e@amination b) *niversit) 'ssured
diploma reco$ni>ed b) *niversit)9 not issued &o deficienc) in service proved 2..8(3) CPC 19/ &.C.
Doctrine of Stare Decises - !#e doctrine means to abide b) or ad#ere to decided case Courts are to stand
b) precedent. (1inorit) vie() - 199%(1) CPC 385 &.C.
Documentar$ evidence ? Complainant did not produce ori$inal document to prove actual date of birt# ?
7eport of Secretar) of ,oard i$nored b) =ora belo( ? 7elief $ranted to complainant cannot be sustained ? 2rder set aside
2.1.(2) CPC %.1 S.C.
Droning of student ' student (#ile on sc#ool picnic on ban8 of river (as dro(ned due to ne$li$ence of
accompan)in$ teac#er 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 39389... for s#eer ne$li$ence 2..4(1) CPC 119 "u<.
Dut$ of E!aminer and Education Board 5t is t#e dut) of board to $ive paramount consideration to
abilit) of e@aminer (#o s#ould a(ard mar8s to e@aminee in a fair manner 2..4(1) CPC 2 S.C.
Education - ' candidate appearin$ in e@amination cannot be re$arded as #irer of service for
consideration of *niversit) - 1998(2) CPC 4.2 H.P.
0 5mpartin$ of education b) education of institution for consideration falls (it#in t#e ambit of services as defined
in Consumer Protection 'ct9 198% 2..9 (3) CPC 214 S.C. distin$uis#ed ? 2.11(1) CPC 1/3 7a<.
0' candidate appearin$ in *niversit) e@amination to $et a de$ree certificate does not come under t#e
definition of a consumer - 2..3(1) CPC 54/ "u<.
0' clause in prospectus of an 5nstitution cannot prevent a student from claimin$ t#e refund (#en #e #ad
not attended t#e classes - 1995(1) CPC 54 '.P.
4
0' complaint a$ainst *niversit) (#ic# is a statutor) bod) is not maintainable under C.P. 'ct - 2...(2)
CPC 4.8 *.P.
0' person appearin$ in e@amination is not a #irer of services of t#e *niversit) under t#e C.P. 'ct -
1998(2) CPC %83 '.P.
0' student appearin$ in e@amination #eld b) *niversit) cannot be #eld to be a consumer under CP 'ct
&or *niversit) #as rendered service for consideration 2..4(1) CPC 22% &.C.
0' student appl)in$ for revaluation of #is result comes under t#e definition of a consumer - 1993 CPC
383 7a<.
0' student availin$ service of 2P b) pa)in$ tuition fee as consideration is a consumer under CP 'ct
2..%(2) CPC 391 -el#i
0' sum of 7s. 992.. (as deposited (it# appellant for -ental Course Class (as never attended
Complainant entitled to refund of total deposits (it# interest 2../(2) CPC %.9 H.P.
' universit) in rec#ec8in$ of mar8s etc. is not a service provider ? &o relief is permissible a$ainst *niversit) as
per latest la( laid do(n b) t#e 'pe@ Court 2.1.(2) CPC 5./ &.C.
0'dmission Student of I class of t#e same sc#ool cannot be denied admission to I5 class b) #is sc#ool
on t#e basis of lo( percenta$e of mar8s even if t#e sc#ool is unaided reco$nised sc#ool - 1995(2) CPC 311 S.C.
0'dmission in 5nstitute b) pa)in$ 7s. %.9... Student leavin$ institute due to ra$$in$ 2.P. bound to
refund entire amount of admission fee 2../(1) CPC 3/. '.P.
--'dmission of complainant (as set aside b) *niversit) due to ille$ibilit) Complainant in t#e absence of
necessar) +ualification cannot be admitted to t#e course of ,-S 2..5(2) CPC /5. Hr.
0'dmittin$ a student to a course (it# implied promise of providin$ education is obviousl) a service
offered a$ainst consideration t#rou$# prospectus 1995(1) CPC 58 "oa
0'fter continuin$ course of computer it (as revealed t#e 5nstitute (as not affiliated (it# -el#i
*niversit) Half of fee paid directed to be refunded to student 2..5(1) CPC 5.2 -el#i
0'll applicants e@cept complainant (ere ordered refund of securit) for sc#ool admission from respondent
sc#ool Complainant also deserves t#e refund of t#e amount 199%(2) CPC 1%5 Hr.
0'mount deposited b) ineli$ible candidate for ,.C.'. Course 2.P. franc#isee directed to refund t#e
amount (it# compensation of 7s. 2.9... *niversit) #eld not liable 2..5(1) CPC %5 C#d.
0'n :ducation ,oard9 performin$ statutor) dut) of conductin$ e@amination does not come under t#e
ambit of C.P. 'ct - 1998(1) CPC 358 Hr.
0'n I7a) e+uipment cannot be said to #ave been purc#ased for commercial purpose merel) t#at is
bein$ used b) students pa)in$ certain fee - 1994(2) CPC /.. &.C.
'ppellant student claimed refund of total deposited fees after mi$ratin$ to ot#er colle$e of #er o(n Dill
? !otal amount not refundable ? 2nl) refund of 156 amount en#anced ille$all) (as reasonable ? 2.1.(1) CPC
398 Pb.
0'ppellant student voluntaril) left t#e course after attendin$ for 3 da)s (it#out reason 7espondent
5nstitution not liable to refund t#e deposits of fee 2..%(1) CPC 1%% C#d.
0'ppellantA2P refused to refund securit) amount after completion of ,!ec# Course a$ainst terms of
a$reement 'ppellant directed to refund t#e securit) amount 2..%(1) CPC 1%/ C#d.
's per prospectus of colle$e Gstudent cannot claim refund of deposited fee if #eAs#e s#ifted voluntaril) to
anot#er institutionH ? 7efund of fee ri$#tl) denied b) 2PColle$e ? 2.1.(1) CPC 559 &.C.
's per 7e$ulations of 2P colle$e9 fee once paid (as refundable if seat vacated b) t#e complainant (as filled up b)
ot#er student before last date of admission ? Complainant9 unable to prove t#is fact not entitled to refund of fee 2.1.(3)
CPC %22 Pb.
,i#ar :ducational ,oard dela)ed result of complainant;s son ? =orum directed 2P to pa) 7s. 129...A
(it# interest for dela) in result ? 's ,oard is not a service provider9 impu$ned order (as set aside 2..9(3) CPC
214 S.C.
0Candidate deposited fee but could not continue studies due to illness 2.P. directed to refund deposits
(it# compensation 7s. 549... and costs 7s. 295.. and certificate 2..5(1) CPC 91 !.&.
0Claim for refund of caution mone) and members#ip fee from sc#ool Consumer <urisdiction barred as
petitioner is not a consumer 2...(1) CPC %21 7a<. H.C.
8
0Claim of refund of fees accepted a$ainst Colle$e and *niversit) *niversit) not liable (#en it #ad
received no pa)ment of fees 2../(2) CPC 2/9 7a<.
--Classes not started after recein$ fee for less number of students *niversit) directed to refund t#e
amount (it# cost - 1999(1) CPC 292 Cerala
0Classes of ,-S (ere not started even after receivin$ 7s. 191299.. as admission fee 7efund (it# 126
P.'. interest alon$(it# 7s. 89... as compensation directed to be paid to complainant - 1999(2) CPC %55 C#d.
0Coac#in$ 5nstitute can ta8e advance for 23 mont#s but not for (#ole duration !#e) cannot convert
t#emselves into commercial s#ops 7efund of 7s. 2.9... (it# costAcompensation of 7s. 89... ordered
2..4(2) CPC 188 -el#i
0Colle$e (as not affiliated but still deposit of 7s. 5292/5 (as accepted from complainant 2P directed to
refund deposits (it# 4.56 from date of deposit 2..4(1) CPC 44 H.P.
0Complainant after depositin$ amount of admission fee etc. leaves t#e Colle$e voluntaril) (#en
institution is (illin$ to impart education Complainant not entitled to refund of deposits 2..8(2) CPC 1% Pb.
0Complainant c#an$in$ stand about incompetenc) of teac#in$ staff 7elief declined 2../(2) CPC /1
C#d.
Complainant could not be promoted to 5t# semester s)stem as #e failed to clear paper of 3rd and /t# semester
s)stem ? 2P not liable for deficienc) in service as it #ad acted as per its re$ulation ? 2.11(1) CPC 299 H.P.
0Complainant could not $et admission in 1.'. class due to mista8e of *niversit) (#ic# (ron$l)
declared #im unsuccessful *niversit) directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 5.9... (it# costs 2..4(2) CPC
/94 H.P.
Complainant could not prove t#at #e (as denied admission b) violatin$ 7e$ulations of *niversit) ?
'dmission in vacant seat (as $iven to ot#er students on merit as per t#eir ran8in$ mar8s ? Complaint not
entitled to refund of full fee 2..9(3) CPC 52. Pb.
0Complainant failed to appear in e@amination as t#e ,an8 draft (as not si$ned b) ,an8 1ana$er Held9
entitled to compensation of 7s. 359... 1993 CPC 535 &.C.
0Complainant $iven admission in ,.-.S. Course b) concealin$ real stren$t# of students Colle$e
aut#orities #eld liable for causin$ loss to complainant 7efund (it# 186 interest allo(ed 1994(2) CPC 13%
&.C.
0Complainant $ot admission in anot#er colle$e immediatel) after depositin$ total fee (it# 2P ? 2P is bound to
refund deposits after deductin$ 7s. 19...A onl) as process fee ? 2.11(1) CPC 219 &.C.
Complainant $ot admission in ,-S Colle$e and deposited a sum of 7s. 59159... but colle$e found to be
unreco$ni>ed ? 2P directed to refund 7s. 59159... (it# 126 interest ? 1odification made b) &ational Commission set
aside 2.1.(3) CPC 199 S.C.
0Complainant $ot admission in disaffiliated sc#ool at t#eir o(n ris8 Cannot claim compensation for
disaffiliation - 1998(1) CPC 1%1 C#d.
0Complainant #ad to leave 5.5.!.!. course due to lac8 of facilities 2P directed to refund securit) amount
of 7s. 9.9... (it# ot#er proportionate amount (it# %6 interest - 2..2(2) CPC /88 C#d.
Complainant left 2.P. institution as #e $ot admission else(#ere ? Seat not proved to #ave been remained
vacant ? 'ppellant *niversit) is bound to refund total amount (it# compensation of 7s. /9... ? 2.1.(1) CPC
1/2 &.C.
Complainant left t#e colle$e and vacant seat filled b) institution ? 7efund of amount deposited b)
complainant could not be denied on t#e plea t#at prospectus and admission form provided for nonrefund of
amount 2..9(1) CPC 3./ H.P.
Complainant not allo(ed to appear in e@amination as #is roll number (as (ron$l) allotted to anot#er
student ? *niversit) directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 2.9... (it# cost 2..9(1) CPC 32 &.C.
Complainant paid coac#in$ fee for t(o )ears but left t#e colle$e after one )ear as coac#in$ (as not
satisfactor) ? Complainant is entitled to refund of fee for one )ear in vie( of *.".C. instructions 2..9(3) CPC
184 &.C.
0Complainant ran from pillar to post but #is date of birt# (as not corrected in Hi$# sc#ool certificate
:ducation board and #eadmaster directed to pa) total sum of 7s. 2%9... as compensation and cost (it#
correction of date of birt# 2../(2) CPC 288 2rissa
9
0Complainant remained unsuccessful in passin$ t#e test necessar) for 1.!. <ob 'ccepted salar) of
apprentice <ob as final settlement 7efund of fees un<ustified 2../(2) CPC 1// Pb.
--Complainant (as forced to discontinue t(o )ears computer course after % mont#s a$ainst a$reed terms
2pposite Part) liable to refund total fee (it# 186 interest 2../(1) CPC 54/ Pb.
Complainant (as issued a receipt of 7s. 29... for pa)ment as tuition fee ? !#e plea t#at total fee of 7s. 99... be
refunded cannot be accepted in t#e absence of documentar) evidence 2.1.(2) CPC 422 Pb.
0Complainant (as not issued -.1.C. despite pa)ment of balance amount of fee 2.P. directed to issue
t#e same (it# compensation of 7s. 195.. Promotion to ne@t class refused 2..5(2) CPC %2/ Hr.
Complainant (as refused conferment of a de$ree as s#e appeared in e@amination in violation of *niversit)
re$ulations ? Complainant is not a consumer nor t#e *niversit) is a service provider 2.1.(2) CPC %9% S.C.
0Complainant (as unable to prove t#at 2P refused to issue duplicate certificate of 1.Sc de$ree ? 5f #is plea is
accepted #o( #e <oined t#e service of teac#er (it#out t#e documents ? 2P not liable for deficienc) in service ? 2.11(1)
CPC 4.3 S.C.
0Complainant (as (ron$l) made to pa) tuition fee b) respondent (#ic# (as not reco$nised institution
Compensation of 7s. 1.9... a(arded to t#e complainant - 1993 CPC %% (2) C#d.
Complainant;s dau$#ter denied admission in ,. !ec# course as s#e could not pa) ille$al mone) of 7s. 3
lacs demanded b) 2P ? 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 259... alon$(it# cost of 7s. 59... 2..9(1)
CPC %9 -el#i
0Complainant;s dau$#ter failed to pass 9t# class preliminar) e@amination Sc#ool aut#orities declined to
s#o( student #avin$ passed 9t# class &o deficienc) in service committed 2...(1) CPC 5.2 Pb.
0Complainant;s result (as dela)ed as t#e complainant failed to submit pro<ect report of Computer course
Colle$e not liable for deficienc) service - 1998(2) CPC 1% Pb.
Complainants <oined t#e courses and completed trainin$ ? Certificates not issued b) 2P ? -ispute bet(een 2P
mana$ement and council ? -eficienc) in service proved ? Compensation a(arded b) t#e State Commission <ustified
2.1.(3) CPC 385 &.C.
0Complaint a$ainst colle$e and universit) *niversit) not liable to pa) compensation (#en it is alread)
paid b) colle$e 2../(2) CPC 513 *.P.
0Complaint a$ainst dela) in declaration of result b) :ducation ,oard Complainant not a consumer
7elief declined 2../(2) CPC 5.% &.C.
0Complaint a$ainst *niversit) for deficienc) in service relatin$ to conduct of e@amination or declaration
of result is not maintainable under Consumer Protection 'ct - 1999(2) CPC 189 Pb.
0Complaint a$ainst *niversit) for irre$ularities in e@amination papers is not maintainable under t#e C.P.
'ct - 2..3(2) CPC 581 &.C.
0Complaint relatin$ to refusal of admission in colle$e (it# certain complicated matters 1atter can be
decided b) civil court - 2...(2) CPC 55% 2rissa
0Comple@ +uestion relatin$ to :ducational 5nstitute involved in t#e complaint Proper remed) lies in
Civil Court and not under Consumer Protection 'ct 2../(1) CPC %% C#d.
0Conductin$ e@amination b) *niversit) ma) be a statutor) dut) but conductin$ t#e stud) course is not a
statutor) function 1998(1) CPC 22 Pb.
0Conductin$ of e@amination b) t#e *niversit) comes under t#e definition of service - 199%(1) CPC 292
B3C
0-eclaration of result or #oldin$ of e@amination does not come (it#in purvie( of Consumer Protection
'ct - 1998(2) CPC 94 1a#a.
---ela) in declaration of result 1atter does not come under ambit of CP 'ct :@aminee not a consumer
2..8(1) CPC 5.9 &.C.
0-ela) in issuance of mar8s s#eet Principal and colle$e liable for nonpa)ment of e@amination fee
-irected to 7s. 259... and costs to 7s. 29... eac# 2..%(2) CPC 538 C##attis$ar#
0-emand of t(o diplomas under one financial pac8a$e offered b) 2pposite Part) cannot be believed9
(#en complainant declined to appear in second e@amination Complaint dismissed Komal 'rasad Sahu v.
6outam Choudhary, 2../(2) CPC 2.9 C.".
0-eposit of 7s. 1 lac as securit) and 7s. 89... as tuition fee b) complainant (#o (as relieved b) 2P
(it# its consent Complainant entitled to refund of securit) deposits (it# 186 interest - 2..3(2) CPC /88 Pb.
1.
0-etention of result for 3 )ears b) Paris#ad as complainant failed to submit transfer certificate Paris#ad
not at fault - 1998(2) CPC 81 *.P
-ifference in date of birt# s#o(n in provisional certificate and t#at $iven in ori$inal certificate causin$
loss of emplo)ment ? 2P directed to correct date of birt# (it# cost and compensation of 7s. 2%9... 2..9(1)
CPC %82 &.C.
0-ispute bet(een candidate and :ducation 'ut#orities about :@amination is not a consumer dispute -
1994(1) CPC /94 Hr.
0-ispute bet(een e@aminee and *niversit) does not come (it#in purvie( of Consumer Protection 'ct
1998(1) CPC 389 Hr.
0-raft of 7s. 81. (as sent (it# ori$inal certificates for admission Eoss of certificates is an immense
loss to candidate 2..5(2) CPC 395 -el#i
0:ducation accordin$ to t#e latest la( does not come under t#e Consumer <urisdiction 2rder of -istrict
=orum is set aside 'ppeal allo(ed - 199%(1) CPC 591 Hr.
0:ducation ,oard failed to intimate name of e@amination Centre -irected to pa) compensation
2..5(1) CPC 99 7a<.
0:ducation ,oard not performin$ an) service for #ire9 does not come (it#in t#e consumer <urisdiction
1995(2) CPC /33 &.C.
0:ducation ,oard refused to issue duplicate certificate as ori$inal (as lost -irected to issue t#e same
(it# compensation of 7s. 25.. - 2...(1) CPC /4. Pb.
:ducation ,oard (#ile conductin$ t#e e@amination or rec#ec8in$ t#e mar8s disc#ar$ed its statutor)
function and not renderin$ an) services ? 2rder of =orum $rantin$ relief to t#e candidate set aside ? 2.1.(1)
CPC 31. 1.P.
0:ducation comes under t#e definition of service as defined under t#e Consumer Protection 'ct 7elief
$ranted to e@aminee - 1993 CPC 8%. Hr.
0:ducation or matter of refund of fees b) an 5nstitution does not come under t#e #eadin$ of GConsumer
-isputeH 1999(1) CPC 33 Hr.
--:ducation s+uarel) comes under GserviceH under t#e C.P. 'ct 199/(2) CPC 131 Hr.
0:ducation s+uarel) comes under GserviceH under t#e Consumer Protection 'ct - 1993 CPC 45. H.P.
0:ducational 5nstitutions cannot be allo(ed to act maliciousl) in t#eir field - 1998(1) CPC 25/ Pb.
0:ducational institutions do not provide a service on #ire ' student is not a consumer under t#e 'ct
199%(1) CPC /98 7a<.
0:ducational service do not come under t#e ambit of C.P. 'ct - 1995(2) CPC 388 Hr.
0:nrollment could not be issued to t#e complainant relatin$ to admission in 1.F1 class due to ne$li$ence
of t#e colle$e Colle$e directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 259... for ne$li$ence 2..%(1) CPC 33. Hr.
0:ven if a student (it#dra(s from studies9 #e is entitled to refund of fees 2..8(1) CPC 85 !.&.
0:@aminer recorded %5/ mar8s in Hi$# Sc#ool Certificate :@amination (#ereas actual mar8s (ere %9.
,oard directed to pa) 7s. 2.9... out of (#ic# 7s. 159... ma) be recovered from computer firm 2..4(1) CPC
2 S.C.
:@pulsion of 7ules ? ,reac# of 7ules ? :ducational 5nstitutions cannot be directed to act in breac# of t#eir rules
and re$ulations 2.1.(3) CPC /19 &.C.
0=ee for <oinin$ education course (as deposited (it# 2P Subse+uentl) complainant (as admitted in
EE. ,. Course and #e re+uested for refund of 7s. 329... 'ppellant is liable to refund t#e amount 2..4(2)
CPC 9% 7a<.
0=ee paid for ,.:d course ? &on conduct of e@amination ? 'ffiliation of institute (as cancelled pursuant to order
of Supreme Court ? 2rder of -istrict =orum a(ardin$ t#e compensation <ustified ? 2.11(1) CPC /8% -el#i
0=ull s)llabus not covered in t(o )ears -iploma Course despite pa)ment of fee 7s. 3%9... 7espondent
liable for deficienc) in service Case remanded 2..5(1) CPC 41 C#d.
05ncorrect ans(ers (ere supplied to complainant b) 2.P. a$ainst pa)ment of 7s. /98.. for a ,rilliant
!utorials 2.P. directed to refund t#e fee (it# compensation and costs 2..4(2) CPC 24 &.C.
11
5nstitute publis#ed false advertisement ? Colle$e neit#er affiliated nor reco$ni>ed for impartin$ education
? 7espondents lost t(o academic )ears ? -eficient service proved ? 5nstitute directed to pa) 7s. 1 lacs as
compensation and costs of 7s. 1 lac8 eac# 2..9(1) CPC %./ S.C.
05ssuance of sc#ool leavin$ certificate s#o(in$ actual position of student Sc#ool aut#orities not liable
for deficienc) in service 2...(2) CPC 98 Pb.
05t is incorrect to sa) t#at education does not come under t#e #eadin$ of service under t#e Consumer
Protection 'ct 1993 CPC 182 Hr.
05t is settled la( t#at (#ere a student voluntaril) discontinues #is studies9 #e is not entitled to refund of
t#e amount deposited (it# t#e institute 2..8(2) CPC %48 Pb.
01alpractice of affiliation and c#ar$in$ fees from students comes under t#e purvie( of C.P. 'ct -
199%(2) CPC 112 Cerala
01atter related to issuance of mar8s s#eet and conduct of e@aminations does not come in t#e purvie( of
Consumer Protection 'ct - 1999(2) CPC 52 *.P.
--1ere nonsuppl) of 7oll &umber to a student b) :ducation ,oard does not render t#e ,oard liable for
deficienc) in service - 1994(1) CPC 3%4 Pb.
01i$ration fees 'ppellant (illin$l) paid colle$e fees for see8in$ mi$ration to anot#er colle$e 7elief
declined 199/(2) CPC 11/ Hr.
01ista8e in fat#er;s name in 1ar8s s#eet Concerned 2fficial #eld liable for deficient service 1998(1)
CPC 31. '.P.
0&ame of teac#er (2P) not correctl) $iven Complaint a$ainst 2.P. for non declaration of result
dismissed - 2../(1) CPC 119 Pb.
0&o cut off percenta$e of mar8s can be fi@ed b) :ducational 5nstitution for admission in #i$#er class
1994(2) CPC 539 -el#i
0&on issuance of permission in letter for e@amination ? -- misplaced in office of 5nstitution due to (#ic# roll
number (as not sent to t#e complainant ? -eficienc) in service proved ? Complainant entitled to compensation ? 2.11(1)
CPC 1/3 7a<.
0&on refund of admission fee of t#e Colle$e is not a deficienc) in service - 1995(1) CPC 18/ &.C.
02.P. a$reed to refund 9.6 of deposited fees if #e (as admitted in anot#er institute 2.P. directed to
compl) (it# its obli$ation 2..5(1) CPC 1%5 C#d.
2.P. c#ar$ed tuition fee of 7s. %9... b) falsel) statin$ t#at institution (as affiliated (it# t#e *niversit) ?
'mount of compensation of 7s. 59... bein$ inade+uate t#e same is en#anced to 7s. 3.9... 2..9(3) CPC 5.3
Car.
02nce complainant lecturer sou$#t voluntar) retirement from service of private colle$e Colle$e
aut#orities cannot be #eld liable for an) mental #arassment 2..%(2) CPC 439 Hr.
2P colle$e (asted t(o )ears of 1% students b) falsel) statin$ t#at t#e colle$e (as reco$ni>ed but it (as
not so ? 2P directed to refund total deposited amount (it# compensation of 7s. %.9...A to eac# student ?
2.1.(1) CPC /92 *.P.
02P institution a$reed to refund tuition fee but later on bac8ed out Complainant seat (as allotted to
ot#er student after it (as vacated b) complainant 7efund of amount of fee <ustified 2..%(2) CPC 155
Pondic#err)
02P *niversit) #arassed complainant b) dela)in$ decision on mi$ration certificate b) % )ears on one prete@t or
ot#er ? 2P directed to issue certificate (it# compensation of 7s. 2.9... and cost of 7s. 19... ? 2.11(1) CPC %94 Pb.
02pposite Part) Colle$e (ron$l) stated t#at sub<ect of <ournalism (as included in ,.'. Course
2pposite Part) #eld liable for refund of fee and ot#er c#ar$es to complainant 2..5(1) CPC /%5 Pb.
02pposite part) e@tracted 7s. 12... from complainant student and issued for$ed -etailed 1ar8s Cards
(it#out impartin$ an) education Complainant entitled to refund of amount (it# interest and cost - 2...(1)
CPC 593 Pb.
02pposite Part) failed to provide standard trainin$ to students as a$reed -irected to refund fees (it#
compensation and cost 2../(1) CPC %/1 -el#i
02pposite part);s colle$e collectin$ fees for 1aster of Personal 1ana$ement course for (#ic# it (as not
aut#orised to $rant admission Held liable for deficienc) in service - 2...(2) CPC 522 1.P.
12
0Parents and student (#o is imparted education9 are covered b) definition of GconsumerH under t#e 'ct
1995(2) CPC 314 "u<.
--Period of seven mont#s in revaluatin$ a result b) *niversit) is not unreasonable and cannot be termed as
a deficient service - 1993 CPC 5/4 Hr.
0P#armac) course P#armac) colle$e dela)ed re$istration of complaint b) 2 )ears Complainant entitled
to 7s. 1.9... as compensation 199/(2) CPC 23. &.C.
0Pra)er for revaluation of paper of ,.'. e@amination declined b) department 1atter not covered under
t#e C.P. 'ct Complaint dismissed - 2...(1) CPC /38 !.&.
07eco$nition of G2H level e@amination b) *niversit) 'ssured diploma reco$ni>ed b) *niversit)9 not
issued &o deficienc) in service proved 2..8(3) CPC 19/ &.C.
7efund of Colle$e fee Student deposited amount of 7s. 4%925.A (it# t#e Colle$e but s#ifted to anot#er
Colle$e ? =ees not refundable as per terms of prospectus ? 2nl) securit) amount etc. amountin$ to 7s. 259...A
ordered to be refunded 2..9(3) CPC 45 Pb.
07efund of deposited amount (it# :ducation 5nstitute (it#out ot#er compensation ordered 2rder
up#eld - 2..3(2) CPC %3/ C#d.
07efund of fee (as declined as per t#e norms laid do(n b) t#e Pan<ab *niversit) &o deficient service
on t#e part of t#e respondent proved 2..2(2) CPC /94 C#d.
07efusal of re$istration for 1. P#il class after passin$ entrance test amounts to be deficient service
*niversit) cannot be e@empted from operation of Consumer Protection 'ct 1999(1) CPC 33/ Pb.
07efusal to refund of =ee before start of tuition classes b) 2P institution -irected to refund total fee
(it# costs of 7s. 59... 2..4(1) CPC %/4 -el#i
07espondent colle$e c#ar$ed 7s. 1/9... and 7s. 29... for courses not dul) reco$ni>ed b) an) universit)
2P directed to refund entire amount (it# 7s. 259... as compensation and 7s. 1.9... as punitive dama$es
2..8(2) CPC /8/ H.P.
7espondent falsel) admitted petitioner in ,'1S de$ree course t#at it (as affiliated to Pun<ab *niversit)
and approved b) CC51 ? Petitioner9 #eld entitled to refund of admission fee (it# 126 interest and 7s. 2 lacs
compensation 2..9(1) CPC /4/ Pb.
07espondent;s result (as dela)ed for more t#an one )ear for non pa)ment of minor amount of fees
Patent deficienc) in service proved 199/(1) CPC 199 Hr.
07esult Complainant;s result (as dela)ed but s#e (as declared successful !#ere is no deficienc) in
service - 199/(2) CPC 1.9 Hr.
07ival contention raised b) bot# t#e parties re$ardin$ admission of complainant in anot#er colle$e Case
remanded to -istt. =orum for fres# decision 2..4(2) CPC 22% &.C.
0Service rendered b) t#e sc#ool is covered b) t#e definition of service under t#e 'ct 1993 CPC 221
-el#i.
S#o(in$ complainant absent in one paper (as deficient service (#en infact #e #ad appeared in t#at e@am
? Compensation as consolidated reduced to 7s. 159... from 7s. 3.9... ? 2.1.(1) CPC 148 &.C.
0SSC e@amination ? 5ncorrect certificate issued ? Petitioner cannot be treated as a service provider and respondent
(#o appeared at t#e SSC e@amination cannot be treated as a consumer ? Compensation a(arded b) =oras belo( set aside
? 2.11(1) CPC /92 &.C.
0Student after pa)in$ 7s. 5.9... as admission fee to 2pposite Part) s#ifted to anot#er colle$e voluntaril)
2.P. not liable to refund admission fee 2../(1) CPC 383 C#d.
Student deposited admission fee but left t#e colle$e of #is o(n (ill ? Claim for refund of fees not
<ustified ? =orfeiture of fees ordered 2..9(2) CPC 43% Pb.
Student deposited amount of fees for admission in ,.Sc (HS) but did not attend t#e class even for a sin$le
da) ? 7efund of total amount ordered b) =orum #eld to be <ustified 2..9(3) CPC 193 C#andi$ar#
0Student (#o is #imself at fault cannot claim compensation from t#e Sc#ool for stri8in$ off #is name -
1993 CPC 45. H.P.
--Student (it#dra(in$ voluntaril) from colle$e Cannot claim refund of fees paid to t#e colle$e 2../(1)
CPC 21% '.P.
13
0Stud) material not sent to student in time Eot of time spent in translation (or8 2pposite Part) liable
to pa) reduced compensation of 7s. 59... 2../(2) CPC 98 Pb.
0!#e colle$e aut#orities did not refund stipulated fee (#en t#e complainant (as admitted in anot#er
colle$e 7efund of fee (it# 126 interest allo(ed 199/(1) CPC 3.3 ,om.
0!#e service of e@aminations even on pa)ment of fee is not covered under Consumer Protection 'ct
1994(2) CPC /%. Pb.
0!ransfer certificate applied on 11.4.199. 5ssued on 12.4.199. C#ar$in$ of fees for Bul)9 199. not
<ustified - 199%(1) CPC 28% 7a<.
0*niversit) c#an$ed t#e date from 15./.1992 to 1/./.1992 (it#out informin$ t#e complainant
-eficienc) in service proved *niversit) directed to a(ard pass mar8 to student 199/(1) CPC 5.4 2rissa
0*niversit) is not bound to ta8e e@amination or publis# t#e result of student of unaffiliated colle$e
2..3(1) CPC 358 B#ar.
0*niversit) (#ile conductin$ t#e e@amination of candidates does not render an) service for consideration
C.P. 'ct #eld not applicable 199/(2) CPC 232 &.C.
0Jaluation or revaluation of mar8s of a candidate b) *niversit) is not a service as defined uAs 2 (1)($) of
t#e C.P. 'ct - 1995(2) CPC %%. &.C.
D#en fee is c#ar$ed for appearin$ in e@amination9 t#e candidate is a consumer visKvis declaration of
result ? 2.1.(1) CPC 148 &.C.
D#ere student attended onl) for 3 out of 2/ mont#s ? 7efund onl) after reasonable deduction is <ustified ?
'dministrative c#ar$es are not deductive 2.1.(3) CPC 54% &.C.
0Dron$ percenta$e in complainant;s result :ducation ,oard ordered to pa) 7s. 29... to complainant -
1995(1) CPC /19 Hr.
Education Board - Complainants fat#er;s name (as misspelt in -etailed 1ar8s Certificate (-.1.C.)
causin$ #arassment to student :ducation ,oard directed to pa) 7s. 39... to complainant 1999(1) CPC %/3
C#d.
0Complaint a$ainst :ducation ,oard or *niversit) for non issuance of 7oll &o. is not maintainable under
C.P. 'ct - 1994(1) CPC /94 Hr.
0,oard failed to provide roll number despite pa)ment of re+uisite fee causin$ mental a$on) to
complainant ,oard directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 1.9... to complainant 2..4(2) CPC 19. C#d.
0,oard issued -1C (it#out addin$ mar8s in Sans8rit sub<ect Complainant a(arded a sum of 7s. 39...
(it# direction to incorporate t#e mar8s in -.1.C 2..5(2) CPC 358 Hr.
--Consumer aut#orit) cannot $ive direction to :ducation ,oard to declare t#e result of a student (#ose
enrollment (as retained b) colle$e of admission due to ne$li$ence 2..%(1) CPC 33. Hr.
07evaluation could not be carried due to loss of paper from bundle ,oard directed to pa) compensation
of 7s. 1.9... 1ar8in$ on avera$e basis disallo(ed 2..5(2) CPC 3. ,i#ar
Education E!penses - 'mount spent on education of deceased cannot be considered to determine
compensation in a case of medical ne$li$ence - 199%(2) CPC /99 Pb.
Education fees Complainant voluntaril) discontinued #is stud) after one )ear 7efund of deposited
amount not permissible 2..4(2) CPC 323 &.C.
02.P. denied to refund deposited amount of education fees even (#en no service (as provided to student
'ct of 2.P. amounts to a deficienc) in service 2..4(2) CPC 1%1 &.C.
Education regulation Complainant could not be promoted to 5t# semester s)stem as #e failed to clear paper
of 3rd and /t# semester s)stem ? 2P not liable for deficienc) in service as it #ad acted as per its re$ulation ? 2.11(1) CPC
299 H.P.
Educational &nstitution - 'dmission in ,'1S course b) (ron$l) statin$ t#at institution (as
affiliated (it# *niversit) 2(ner of institute 3 not t#e Principal #eld liable for deficient service - 2..3(1) CPC
248 Pb.
Complainant;s dau$#ter (as under intense strain of 2P;s Hostel durin$ stud) course ultimatel) s#e committed
suicide ? 2P not found $uilt) b) t#e Hi$# Court ? '(ard of 7s. 5 lacs b) State Commission set aside ? 2.11(1) CPC 3/
&.C.
1/
0Complainant despite passin$ of :ntrance :@amination (as denied re$istration for de$ree of 1. P#il
*niversit) directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 59... 2..5(1) CPC %34 &.C.
0-iploma started b) 5nstitution not reco$nised b) *niversit) 7efund of fees (it# 186 interest allo(ed
to complainant - 1998(2) CPC 13 C#d.
0:ducational 5nstitutions recoverin$ fees from students are $uilt) of *nfair !rade Practice under CP 'ct
2..4(1) CPC 22% &.C.
0:ducation institutions do not come under t#e ambit of C.P. 'ct - 1995(2) CPC /12 1adras H.C.
0Suc# 5nstitutions are not completel) out side t#e purvie( of t#e C.P. 'ct. - 199%(2) CPC 112 Cerala
0!#ou$# :ducation of 5nstitution not covered under C.P. 'ct ,ut (#ere #ostel facilities are provided on
pa)ment9 sc#ool aut#orities come under t#e ambit of t#e 'ct - 1994(2) CPC 31/ Hr.
"uidelines issued b) *"C to refund of admission fees b) :ducational 5nstitution e@cept 7s. 19... or proportionate
fee is bindin$ on all affiliated institutions 2.1.(2) CPC %19 &.C.
Educational Service - 'ns(er boo8 not evaluated properl) despite deposit of fee 2.P. directed to
evaluate ans(er boo8 and to pa) compensation of 7s. 39... 2..%(1) CPC 33% 7a<.
C#ar$in$ of fees in advance b) educational institution is #i$#l) unet#ical amountin$ to unfair trade
practice 2..4(1) CPC 113 -el#i
0Complainant #as to leave computer course in bet(een due to lac8 of +ualified facult) 2P directed to
pa) a sum of 7s. 195.. (it# cost 2..%(1) CPC %13 -el#i
0Complainant misled b) (ron$ advertisement (as admitted in institute (#ic# (as not reco$ni>ed 2P
directed to refund t#e amount (it# interest 2..8(1) CPC /11 &.C.
Complainant after ta8in$ admission in an 1,' surrendered t#e seat in t#e midcourse (#ic# remained
vacant in t#e )ear ? 2P not liable to refund t#e admission fee 2..9(1) CPC 31 &.C.
Complainant (as prevented from appearin$ in t#e e@amination #eld b) CPSC due to lac8 of #all tic8et ?
CPSC could not prove t#at #all tic8et (as received b) complainant t#rou$# speed post ? CPSC is liable for
deficienc) in service 2..9(1) CPC /1 &.C.
"uardian of student si$ned t#e underta8in$ for non refund of fees ? Complainant failed to attend classes
despite (ritin$ to #im b) institute ? 7efund of fees disallo(ed ? 2nl) securit) amount is refundable 2..9(1)
CPC 213 &.C.
0Complainant paid admission fees for ,.:d. correspondence course 'dmission not $iven b) *niversit)
Complainant entitled to refund of fees paid (it# interest 2../(2) CPC %51 &.C.
0Complainant;s dau$#ter voluntaril) s#ifted to anot#er Colle$e from 'ppellant;s 5nstitution 'ppellant
directed to refund admission fee (it# 96 interest (it#out compensation 2../(1) CPC 2/3 "u<.
0:ducation service falls under t#e ambit of service under t#e 'ct 2..5(1) CPC %%3 Car.
0=alse certificates re$ardin$ passin$ of e@amination issued b) 2P 2P directed to refund fee (it# 186
and compensation - 2..3(2) CPC %.. &.C.
02P denied permission to student to sit in e@amination despite pa)ment of c#ar$es (#ic# caused loss of
one precious )ear ,oard directed to pa) compensation 7s. 259... (it# 126 interest 2..4(1) CPC /3 &.C.
0Sc#ool (as closed after receivin$ admission fee 2.P. directed to refund fee (it# interest and cost
2../(2) CPC 3/3 C.".
0Seat secured t#rou$# :'1C:! and deposited part pa)ment for &57 seat Complainant not attend a
sin$le class -eficient service proved 7efund of amount (it# interest directed 2..8(3) CPC 9/ '.P.
0Student electrocuted (#ile s#iftin$ iron ladder (#ic# came into contact (it# #i$# tension po(er line
7elations#ip of student (it# colle$e as consumer and service provider not establis#ed 7elief declined
2..8(2) CPC 3.2 &.C.
Eligi'ilit$ - -:2 on recommendation $ave GPratib#a a(ardH to a candidate securin$ 529 out of %.. mar8s
(#ereas complainant secured 5/5 mar8s ? 2P is directed to pa) cas# (it# compensation and cost to eli$ible candidate ?
2..9(1) CPC 349 '.P.
Entrance #est - 7efusal of re$istration for 1. P#il class after passin$ entrance test amounts to be deficient
service *niversit) cannot be e@empted from operation of Consumer Protection 'ct &shu ,osh v. -ice Chancellor,
'unja5i "ni#ersity, 'atiala, 1999(1) CPC 33/ Pb.
15
Erroneous Order ( 1atter (as decided on merit b) -istrict =orum ? 2rder of State Commission remandin$
t#e matter for redecision is erroneous ? 2..9(1) CPC 53 &.C.
E!amination - =ee paid for ,.:d course ? &on conduct of e@amination ? 'ffiliation of institute (as cancelled
pursuant to order of Supreme Court ? 2rder of -istrict =orum a(ardin$ t#e compensation <ustified ? 2.11(1) CPC /8%
-el#i
E!amination )orms - Students paid fees to 5nstitute (#ic# did not send e@amination form to *niversit)
-irected to pa) 7s. 59... per student as compensation 199%(1) CPC 315 Cerala
E!pulsion from school Student (as removed from sc#ool for nonpa)ment of fees ? 's per 7ule 259 it (as
compulsor) to deposit fees b) 1.t# of ever) mont# ? Compensation a(arded b) =ora belo( set aside ? Complaint
dismissed 2.1.(3) CPC /19 &.C.
E! Parte Order - Petitioner failed to pa) conditional costs for settin$ aside e@parte proceedin$ :@parte
proceedin$ up#eld - 2..2(2) CPC /88 C#d.
Case fi@ed for 2.P.s evidence and not for an) act to be done b) complainant :@ parte order passed for non
appearance of complainant is ille$al - 2..3(2) CPC 199 C#d.
)ashion designing course Complainant after depositin$ fee of 7s. 2/9... left t#e course of =as#ion
-esi$nin$ of #er o(n (ill ? 2P not bound to refund t#e amount of fees as per conditions of admission form ?
2.1.(1) CPC 55% C#d.
)elloship grant - Complainant #ad (ritten manuscript of #is o(n volition Services not #ired b) 2.P. 2.P.
not obli$ed to pa) fello(s#ip amount as #e is not a consumer - 2../(1) CPC 159 C#d.
Government emplo$ee - !eac#ers emplo)ed in "overnment 'ided Colle$e demandin$ arrears of salar)
Complaint does not lie under Consumer Protection 'ct - 1999(1) CPC /93 *.P.
Gratuit$ 0-isbursement of $ratuit) does not come (it#in t#e purvie( of Consumer Protection 'ct !#ere is no
element of #irin$ of service - 1998(2) CPC 48 Pb.
*a%ardous 'oo+ 's man) as 19 out of /5 ans(ers to +uestions (ere found (ron$ in t#e boo8 meant for PCS
:@amination Complainant allo(ed 7s. 1.9... for sufferin$ loss Publication banned Rajesh Sharma #! :s! Bright
Career 0nstitute, 2..3(2) CPC %%4 C#d.
*iring of Service ? 1ere pa)ment of to8en amount of 7s. 8. to(ards re$istration in medical colle$e
does not amount to consideration for #irin$ services under C.P. 'ct 2..9(1) CPC 588 &.C.
,) pa)ment of fee for ta8in$ t#e e@amination9 does not come under t#e definition of #irin$ of service 4ad#indra
'u5lic School #! s! 6unjan 6upta9 1994(2) CPC /%. Pb.
*ostel charges Complainant voluntaril) not occup)in$ t#e #ostel room 7efund of securit) amount onl) (as
allo(ed 1994(1) CPC %.4 Pb.
*ostel facilities !#ou$# :ducation of 5nstitution not covered under C.P. 'ct ,ut (#ere #ostel facilities are
provided on pa)ment9 sc#ool aut#orities come under t#e ambit of t#e 'ct *imalaya 'u5lic School #! Rishi Dua, 1994(2)
CPC 31/ Hr.
&.&.#.#. course - Complainant #ad to leave 5.5.!.!. course due to lac8 of facilities 2P directed to
refund securit) amount of 7s. 9.9... (it# ot#er proportionate amount (it# %6 interest - 2..2(2) CPC /88 C#d.
&nherent poers - ' -istrict =orum #as an in#erent po(er of revie( or recallin$ an order if t#e facts of t#e
case so re+uire - 2..1(1) CPC 23 2rissa
&nstructions of ,GC :ducational institutions are bound to refund fees of students (#o #ad
(it#dra(n from institutes b) securin$ admission in anot#er institute as per instructions of *"C 2..9(1) CPC
242 &.C.
&nterest - 5nterest on refund of deposit b) defaultin$ colle$e s#ould be counted from t#e date of deposit -i#e$
inhas #! 0!0!,!,! College of Engineering, Kala &m59 2..4(1) CPC 44 H.P.
&ntervies - &otice for intervie( (ere dispatc#ed on 2%.2.1993 -ate of intervie( (as /.3.1993 Sc#ool
aut#orities not liable for loss Rohit %ain v. De+an *ari Krishan Dass, 1995(1) CPC 35% Hr.
&nterpretation - 5nterpretation of rules and re$ulations of a educational instruction cannot be made b) consumer
fora - 'rincipal, Rajendra College v. Shreeya *ota, 2...(2) CPC 55% 2rissa
1%
-avelin through - ' student met tra$ic deat# as t#e Bavelin t#ro(n b) anot#er student pieced t#rou$# #is bod)
!#e unluc8) bo) entered t#e $round from bac8 side 1atter not covered under t#e C.P. 'ct - 1998(2) CPC %48 C#d.
-o' guarantee ? 'dvertisement ? 2P publis#ed an advertisement in ne(spaper offerin$ a course (it# 1..6 <ob
$uarantee ? 5ssued certificates proved to be false ? *nfair !rade Practice proved ? :ntitled to relief 2.1.(3) CPC /43
&.C.
-o' oriented courses ? Complainants <oined t#e courses and completed trainin$ ? Certificates not issued b)
2P ? -ispute bet(een 2P mana$ement and council ? -eficienc) in service proved ? Compensation a(arded b) t#e State
Commission <ustified 2.1.(3) CPC 385 &.C.
-udicial decision - State Commission and -istrict =orums are bound to follo( decisions of &ational
Commission - 199%(1) CPC 385 &.C.
.ia'ilit$ - 'dmission in ,'1S course b) (ron$l) statin$ t#at institution (as affiliated (it# *niversit) 2(ner
of institute 3 not t#e principal #eld liable for deficient service - &jit Singh Kamra v. Daljit Kaur, 2..3(1) CPC 248 Pb.
/aintenance fund0development charges Sc#ool aut#orities cannot c#ar$e maintenance or buildin$
fund from students as t#ese are not directl) related to service of impartin$ education 2..4(1) CPC 11% -el#i
/anuscript pu'lication - Complainant #ad (ritten manuscript of #is o(n volition Services not #ired b)
2.P. 2.P. not obli$ed to pa) fello(s#ip amount as #e is not a consumer - '!S! Sa+hney v. 'rincipal S! K! Bhattacharya,
,echnical ,eachers) ,raining 0nstitute, 2../(1) CPC 159 C#d.
/ar+s sheet - 1ista8e in fat#er;s name in 1ar8s s#eet Concerned 2fficial #eld liable for deficient
service - 1998(1) CPC 31. '.P.
/ental strain ? Complainant;s dau$#ter (as under intense strain of 2P;s Hostel durin$ stud) course ultimatel)
s#e committed suicide ? 2P not found $uilt) b) t#e Hi$# Court ? '(ard of 7s. 5 lacs b) State Commission set aside ?
2.11(1) CPC 3/ &.C.
/igration certificate ? 2P *niversit) #arassed complainant b) dela)in$ decision on mi$ration certificate b)
% )ears on one prete@t or ot#er ? 2P directed to issue certificate (it# compensation of 7s. 2.9... and cost of 7s. 19... ?
2.11(1) CPC %94 Pb.
/isguidance '$ College 2pposite Part) Colle$e (ron$l) stated t#at sub<ect of <ournalism (as
included in ,.'. Course 2pposite Part) #eld liable for refund of fee and ot#er c#ar$es to complainant
2..5(1) CPC /%5 Pb.
/isrepresentation - Complainants (ere $iven admission for ,-S course b) misrepresentation Course (as
not reco$nised b) -ental Council of 5ndia :ac# complainant #eld entitled to refund of amount (it# 126 interest and 7s.
2.9... - 2..1(1) CPC 1/. &.C.
/ista+e in Certificate - Complainants fat#er;s name (as misspelt in -etailed 1ar8s Certificate
(-1C) causin$ #arassment to student :ducation ,oard directed to pa) 7s. 39... to complainant - 1999(1)
CPC %/3 C#d.
/ista+e in mar+sheet - S#o(in$ complainant absent in one paper (as deficient service (#en infact #e #ad
appeared in t#at e@am ? Compensation as consolidated reduced to 7s. 159... from 7s. 3.9... ? 2.1.(1) CPC 148 &.C.
1ecessar$ part$ - Claim for refund of fees deposited for a course :ducational 5nstitution is a necessar) part)
- Dr! ancy &le;ander 'resident Dr! &le;ander Education 1oundation v. 'reena Kurian, 199%(2) CPC 112 Cerala
1otice - 'n 5nstitute not bound to $ive individual notice to eac# student appearin$ for vivae@amination -ispla)
of notice on &otice ,oard of 5nstitute is sufficient compliance of service - 1995(1) CPC 1/2 &.C.
Official2s fault - -ela) of 44 da)s in filin$ appeal !ime spent in official consultation not sufficient $round for
condonation - 'unja5 School Education Board, ohali v. *arpal Singh, 2..3(1) CPC 1/4 Pb.
Opportunit$ - Counsel of 2.P. (as debarred from practice at t#e time of en$a$ement 2.P. could not be
represented Case remanded 2..5(1) CPC 32 &.C.
P.C.S. e!amination - 's man) as 19 out of /5 ans(ers to +uestions (ere found (ron$ in t#e boo8 meant for
PCS :@amination Complainant allo(ed 7s. 1.9... for sufferin$ loss Publication banned - Rajesh Sharma v. :s!
Bright Career 0nstitute, 2..3(2) CPC %%4 C#d.
P.G. Course - Complainant;s (ere denied admission to P.". course after pa)ment of 7s. 2.5. lacs eac#
as fees 2.P. directed to refund t#e amount to eac# complainant (it#in four (ee8s - 2..3(2) CPC 588 &.C.
14
Patent error - =ailin$ student s#o(n as brilliant student Compensation a(arded to student9 reduced from 7s.
1.9... to 7s. 19... onl) - 1993 CPC /9% Hr.
Per &ncuram - 'n) decision i$norin$ t#e decision of ape@ court cannot become a bindin$ precedent - 199%(1)
CPC 385 &.C.
Personal service - Contracts based upon personal service do not come under t#e definition of service -
'rincipal, C! Kandas+ami /aidu College for .omen, Cuddalore v. District Consumer Disputes Redressal 1orum,
ylapore, 1995(2) CPC /12 1adras H.C.
Pharmac$ course - P#armac) colle$e dela)ed re$istration of complaint b) 2 )ears Complainant entitled to
7s. 1.9... as compensation - 199/(2) CPC 23. &.C.
0Student paid fees and (as admitted in , p#armac) course b) t#e 5nstitution not afflicted (it# *niversit) Student
#eld entitled to refund and compensation - 1995(1) CPC 58 "oa
Prati'ha aard ( -:2 on recommendation $ave GPratib#a a(ardH to a candidate securin$ 529 out of %..
mar8s (#ereas complainant secured 5/5 mar8s ? 2P is directed to pa) cas# (it# compensation and cost to eli$ible
candidate ? 2..9(1) CPC 349 '.P.
Precedent ? ' (ron$ decision ta8en b) 'ut#orities cannot be made a precedent for ot#er case ? 2.1.(1)
CPC 354 D.,.
Promotion to ne!t class ? Complainant could not be promoted to 5t# semester s)stem as #e failed to clear
paper of 3rd and /t# semester s)stem ? 2P not liable for deficienc) in service as it #ad acted as per its re$ulation ?
2.11(1) CPC 299 H.P.
Prospectus - Consumer fora cannot $o into t#e relevanc) of rule of a prospectus of an educational institute -
%agdeep Singh v. Regional Computer Centre, 2..1(2) CPC %81 C#d.
Provisional certificate ? Complainant (as unable to prove t#at 2P refused to issue duplicate certificate of
1.Sc de$ree ? 5f #is plea is accepted #o( #e <oined t#e service of teac#er (it#out t#e documents ? 2P not liable for
deficienc) in service ? 2.11(1) CPC 4.3 S.C.
Punitive damaged 7espondent colle$e c#ar$ed 7s. 1/9... and 7s. 29... for courses not dul) reco$ni>ed b)
an) universit) 2P directed to refund entire amount (it# 7s. 259... as compensation and 7s. 1.9... as punitive dama$es
2..8(2) CPC /8/ H.P.
Pu'lisher2s lia'ilit$ - 's man) as 19 out of /5 ans(ers to +uestions (ere found (ron$ in t#e boo8 meant for
PCS :@amination Complainant allo(ed 7s. 1.9... for sufferin$ loss Publication banned - Rajesh Sharma v. :s!
Bright Career 0nstitute, 2..3(2) CPC %%4 C#d.
Ragging - 'dmission in 5nstitute b) pa)in$ 7s. %.9... Student leavin$ institute due to ra$$in$ 2.P. bound to
refund entire amount of admission fee - 6! Bhanuprasad v. &! Srini#asa Rao, 2../(1) CPC 3/. '.P.
Refund of admission fee - 5t is settled la( t#at (#ere a student voluntaril) discontinues #is studies9 #e
is not entitled to refund of t#e amount deposited (it# t#e institute 2..8(2) CPC %48 Pb.
Petitioner student did not attend classes even for a sin$le da) and #ad (it#dra(n candidature before
second counselin$ ? 7efund of fees of 7s. 293.9...A (it# 126 p.a. interest ordered 2..9(3) CPC 54 &.C.
Refund of amount - Complainant misled b) (ron$ advertisement (as admitted in institute (#ic# (as not
reco$ni>ed 2P directed to refund t#e amount (it# interest 'uneet Saran #! -inod and another, 2..8(1) CPC /11 &.C.
Refund of dues - Dit#dra(al from colle$e (it# its consent Student entitled to refund of securit) onl)
- 2..3(2) CPC /88 Pb.
Refund of fee - 'fter continuin$ course of computer it (as revealed t#e 5nstitute (as not affiliated (it#
-el#i *niversit) Half of fee paid directed to be refunded to student 2..5(1) CPC 5.2 -el#i
's per prospectus of colle$e Gstudent cannot claim refund of deposited fee if #eAs#e s#ifted voluntaril) to
anot#er institutionH ? 7efund of fee ri$#tl) denied b) 2PColle$e ? 2.1.(1) CPC 559 &.C.
Complainant $ot admission in anot#er colle$e immediatel) after depositin$ total fee (it# 2P ? 2P is bound to
refund deposits after deductin$ 7s. 19... onl) as process fee ? 2.11(1) CPC 219 &.C.
's per 7e$ulations of 2P colle$e9 fee once paid (as refundable if seat vacated b) t#e complainant (as filled up b)
ot#er student before last date of admission ? Complainant9 unable to prove t#is fact not entitled to refund of fee 2.1.(3)
CPC %22 Pb.
18
--Claim of refund of fees accepted a$ainst Colle$e and *niversit) *niversit) not liable (#en it #ad
received no pa)ment of fees 2../(2) CPC 2/9 7a<.
--Classes closed due to student;s stri8e Complainant entitled to refund of total fee (it# 156 interest -
1999(1) CPC 2%1 Cer.
0Coac#in$ centre refusin$ to refund fees received in advance for period (#en no service (as availed
2P is $uilt) of deficienc) in service 2..4(1) CPC 113 -el#i
0Complainant after depositin$ amount of admission fee etc. leaves t#e Colle$e voluntaril) (#en
institution is (illin$ to impart education Complainant not entitled to refund of deposits ? 2..8(2) CPC 1% Pb.
Complainant after depositin$ fee of 7s. 2/9...A left t#e course of =as#ion -esi$nin$ of #er o(n (ill ?
2P not bound to refund t#e amount of fees as per conditions of admission form ? 2.1.(1) CPC 55% C#d.
Complainant after pa)in$ coac#in$ fee of 7s. 219...A (it#dre( in midstream and demanded refund of
admission fee ? 2P not liable to refund t#e admission fee as complainant #ad violated t#e terms of a$reement ?
2.1.(1) CPC 5%3 &.C.
Complainant after ta8in$ admission in an 1,' surrendered t#e seat in t#e midcourse (#ic# remained
vacant in t#e )ear ? 2P not liable to refund t#e admission fee 2..9(1) CPC 31 &.C.
Complainant could not prove t#at #e (as denied admission b) violatin$ 7e$ulations of *niversit) ?
'dmission in vacant seat (as $iven to ot#er students on merit as per t#eir ran8in$ mar8s ? Complaint not
entitled to refund of full fee 2..9(3) CPC 52. Pb.
Complainant left 2.P. institution as #e $ot admission else(#ere ? Seat not proved to #ave been remained
vacant ? 'ppellant *niversit) is bound to refund total amount (it# compensation of 7s. /9... ? 2.1.(1) CPC
1/2 &.C.
Complainant left t#e colle$e and vacant seat filled b) institution ? 7efund of amount deposited b)
complainant could not be denied on t#e plea t#at prospectus and admission form provided for nonrefund of
amount 2..9(1) CPC 3./ H.P.
Complainant paid coac#in$ fee for t(o )ears but left t#e colle$e after one )ear as coac#in$ (as not
satisfactor) ? Complainant is entitled to refund of fee for one )ear in vie( of *.".C. instructions 2..9(3) CPC
184 &.C.
0Complainant remained unsuccessful in passin$ t#e test necessar) for 1.!. <ob 'ccepted salar) of
apprentice <ob as final settlement 7efund of fees un<ustified 2../(2) CPC 1// Pb.
0Complainant voluntaril) discontinued #is stud) after one )ear 7efund of deposited amount not
permissible 2..4(2) CPC 323 &.C.
Complainant (as issued a receipt of 7s. 29... for pa)ment as tuition fee ? !#e plea t#at total fee of 7s.
99... be refunded cannot be accepted in t#e absence of documentar) evidence 2.1.(2) CPC 422 Pb.
0Complainant;s dau$#ter volunteerl) s#ifted to anot#er Colle$e from 'ppellant;s 5nstitution 'ppellant
directed to refund admission fee (it# 96 interest (it#out compensation - 2../(1) CPC 2/3 "u<.
---eficienc) Complainant $ot t#e admission of #is dau$#ter cancelled Held9 entitled to refund of all t#e dues
e@cept t#e admission fees - 1993 CPC 221 -el#i
-emand of deposited fee of 7s. /.9... raised soon after / da)s ? 5nstitute cannot forfeit more t#an 256
of deposited amount 2..9(2) CPC 5 44 *.P.
0:ducation or matter of refund of fees b) an 5nstitution does not come under t#e #eadin$ of GConsumer
-isputeH - 1999(1) CPC 33 Hr.
:ducational institutions are bound to refund fees of students (#o #ad (it#dra(n from institutes b)
securin$ admission in anot#er institute as per instructions of *"C 2..9(1) CPC 242 &.C.
0:ven if a student (it#dra(s from studies9 #e is entitled to refund of fees 2..8(1) CPC 85 !.&.
"uardian of student si$ned t#e underta8in$ for non refund of fees ? Complainant failed to attend classes
despite (ritin$ to #im b) institute ? 7efund of fees disallo(ed ? 2nl) securit) amount is refundable 2..9(1)
CPC 213 &.C.
02.P. a$reed to refund 9.6 of deposited fees if #e (as admitted in anot#er institute 2.P. directed to
compl) (it# its obli$ation 2..5(1) CPC 1%5 C#d.
2P c#ar$ed tuition fee of 7s. 359... for '$riculture 1ana$ement course of % mont#s from 15 complainants (#o
spent 7s. 2/9... eac# on ot#er trainin$ e@penses ? 5nstitution (as not reco$ni>ed b) &PC as told ? 2P directed to refund
19
fee (it# compensation 2.1.(3) CPC 8/ H.P.
7espondent falsel) admitted petitioner in ,'1S de$ree course t#at it (as affiliated to Pun<ab *niversit)
and approved b) CC51 ? Petitioner9 #eld entitled to refund of admission fee (it# 126 interest and 7s. 2 lacs
compensation 2..9(1) CPC /4/ Pb.
0Students could not complete computer course as 5nstitution (as closed before completion of course
7efund of fees ordered - 1998(2) CPC %5 1.P.
Refund of Securit$ - 'ppellantA2P refused to refund securit) amount after completion of ,!ec#
Course a$ainst terms of a$reement 'ppellant directed to refund t#e securit) amount 00,, College of
Engineering #! 6urpreet Singh, 2..%(1) CPC 1%/ C#d.
Refund of tuition fee - 'ppellant student voluntaril) left t#e course after attendin$ for 3 da)s (it#out
reason 7espondent 5nstitution not liable to refund t#e deposits of fee 2..%(1) CPC 1%% C#d.
07efund of tuition fee is permissible from start of session till t#e date a student left for anot#er institution
2..8(1) CPC 5.1 H.P.
Refund0forfeiture of fees Student deposited admission fee but left t#e colle$e of #is o(n (ill ?
Claim for refund of fees not <ustified ? =orfeiture of fees ordered ? 2..9(2) CPC 43% Pb.
Relief - 7elief cannot be $ranted on alle$ed embe>>lement etc. under t#e 'ct - 'ar#esh Kumar v. 0nstitute of
Correspondence Studies, *imayat /agar, *ydera5ad, 1993 CPC %% C#d.
Remand 7ival contention raised b) bot# t#e parties re$ardin$ admission of complainant in anot#er colle$e
Case remanded to -istt. =orum for fres# decision 2..4(2) CPC 22% &.C.
Remand against facts ( 1atter (as decided on merit b) -istrict =orum ? 2rder of State Commission
remandin$ t#e matter for redecision is erroneous ? 2..9(1) CPC 53 &.C.
Remote cause - 7emote cause of loss cannot be made basis of a(ardin$ compensation 5t s#ould be based upon
direct loss - *ar5hajan Singh v. Daya /and edical College and *ospital, 199%(2) CPC /99 Pb.
Revaluation - 7evaluation could not be carried due to loss of paper from bundle ,oard directed to pa)
compensation of 7s. 1.9... 1ar8in$ on avera$e basis disallo(ed 2..5(2) CPC 3. ,i#ar
Revie - ' -istrict =orum #as an in#erent po(er of revie( or recallin$ an order if t#e facts of t#e case so re+uire
- &nupam 'ani v. Director of &dmission, 9rissa Engineering College, 2..1(1) CPC 23 2rissa
S.S.C. E!amination SSC e@amination ? 5ncorrect certificate issued ? Petitioner cannot be treated as a service
provider and respondent (#o appeared at t#e SSC e@amination cannot be treated as a consumer ? Compensation a(arded
b) =oras belo( set aside ? 2.11(1) CPC /92 &.C.
Salar$ arrears - 1atters relatin$ to pa)ment of salar) arrears or selection $rade of an emplo)ee does not come
under a consumer dispute - Ram Saran Bajaj #! B!D! Senior Secondary School, 1994(1) CPC 51% Hr.
0!eac#ers emplo)ed in "overnment 'ided Colle$e demandin$ arrears of salar) Complaint does not lie under
Consumer Protection 'ct - 1999(1) CPC /93 *.P.
Scholarship - ' Delfare State cannot be e@pected to cancel sc#olars#ip of a meritorious student on fictitious
$rounds - State of *aryana #! -ishal &ggar+al, 1994(1) CPC 52. Hr.
School Admission - ' sc#ool is not responsible (#en a student #as left t#e sc#ool of #is o(n9 if suc#
student is not $iven admission b) anot#er 5nstitution - 1994(2) CPC 414 *.P.
0Consumer =orum cannot declare an) rule or prospectus of an) 5nstitution as unconstitutional - 1994(1)
CPC 2%3 Hr.
0-eat# of student in recess period due to uncontrolled cro(d of students Sc#ool aut#orities #eld liable
to pa) 7s. 5.9... to parents of eac# diseased student - 1995(2) CPC 314 "u<.
05nfant c#ild admitted in sc#ool cannot be penalised for alle$ed misbe#aviour of #is mot#er Sc#ool
aut#orities directed to refund total fees (it# penalt) 1998(1) CPC 5%1 C#d.
07espondent sc#ool not reco$nised under an) Statute Compensation for appl)in$ unfair trade practice
declined - 1998(1) CPC 5. -el#i
0Student of I class of t#e same sc#ool cannot be denied admission to I5 class b) #is sc#ool on t#e basis
of lo( percenta$e of mar8s even if t#e sc#ool is unaided reco$nised sc#ool - 1995(2) CPC 311 S.C.
0Dit#dra(al of student from sc#ool as it (as (ron$l) stated to be a branc# of reco$nised sc#ool
Compensation declined uAs. 1/ (1) (f) of t#e 'ct - 1998(1) CPC 5. -el#i
2.
School Authorities - &otice for intervie( (ere dispatc#ed on 2%.2.1993 -ate of intervie( (as
/.3.1993 Sc#ool aut#orities not liable for deficienc) in service - 1995(1) CPC 35% Hr.
0Complainant #ad alread) $ot #is c#ildren admitted in anot#er sc#ool 'lle$ation a$ainst sc#ool not to
be sustained - 1995(2) CPC %51 Hr.
0"uardian c#an$in$ #is mind about admission of #is c#ild in sc#ool 7efund of admission fee cannot be
claimed as sc#ool aut#orities are not at fault - 199%(2) CPC 2/2 C#d.
05ssuance of sc#ool leavin$ certificate s#o(in$ actual position of student Sc#ool aut#orities not liable
for deficienc) in service ? 2...(2) CPC 98 Pb.
School )ee - Complainant (it#dra(in$ #is dau$#ter from sc#ool for unsatisfactor) teac#in$
arran$ement 7efund of maintenance9 librar) 3 securit) amounts (as allo(ed e@cludin$ ot#er admission fee9
coac#in$ c#ar$es etc. - 2..3(2) CPC 3.3 &.C.
--Sc#ool s#ifted to 15 C.1. a(a) Students (it#dra(in$ from sc#ool #eld entitled to refund of securit)
onl) and no ot#er dues - 199%(2) CPC 1%5 Hr.
School .eaving Certificate - Complainant;s dau$#ter failed to pass 9t# class preliminar)
e@amination (it#in stipulated period Sc#ool aut#orities ri$#tl) declined to s#o( t#e student #avin$ passed 9t#
class &o deficienc) in service committed - 2...(1) CPC 5.2 Pb.
0C#ar$es paid as sc#ool fees includes c#ar$es for issuance of sc#ool certificate &o e@tra c#ar$es are
pa)able b) student for obtainin$ t#e certificate 2..4(1) CPC 11% -el#i
0Provisional promotion to 1.t# class does not entitle a student to $et a sc#ool leavin$ certificate s#o(in$
#er #avin$ passed 9t# class a$ainst realit) - 2...(2) CPC 98 Pb.
0Sc#ool aut#orit) refused to issue sc#ool leavin$ certificate to mot#er of son as matter of $uardians#ip
(as sub<udice 'ut#orities committed no fault - 2..3(1) CPC %.1 1a#a.
School picnic - ' student (#ile on sc#ool picnic on ban8 of river (as dro(ned due to ne$li$ence of
accompan)in$ teac#er 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 39389... for s#eer ne$li$ence 2..4(1) CPC
119 "u<.
School Prospectus - Consumer =ora #ave no <urisdiction to declare a prospectus of an) sc#ool as
ille$al or invalid - 2..1(1) CPC 22/ -el#i
0*nreasonable conditions Students are not bound b) unreasonable conditions $iven in t#e sc#ool
prospectus 1993 CPC 221 -el#i
School Result - -etention of result for 3 )ears b) Paris#ad as complainant failed to submit transfer
certificate Paris#ad not at fault - 1998(2) CPC 81 *.P.
School Souvenir ( 2P failed to print sc#ool souvenir in time despite receivin$ advance mone) of 7s. /.9...A
2P directed to refund deposited amount (it# 4.56 p.a. interest for deficienc) in service ? 2.1.(1) CPC 385 Pb.
Service - ' student appearin$ in e@amination #eld b) *niversit) cannot be #eld to be a consumer under CP 'ct
&or *niversit) #as rendered service for consideration 2..4(1) CPC 22% &.C.
0-eclaration of result or #olin$ of e@amination b) *niversit) is a statutor) dut) and not a #irin$ of service under
CP 'ct 'unja5 "ni#ersity #! Ram Chander, 2..8(1) CPC %99 Hr.
0!#e term GserviceH under Consumer Protection 'ct means a service of an) description includin$ admission in
#i$#er class b) :ducational 5nstitution - 6anga Ram Chandna #! ,he 'rincipal, Doon 'u5lic School, 1994(2) CPC 539
-el#i
0:ducation comes s+uarel) (it#in t#e area of GserviceH under t#e 'ct - ,ila$ Raj #! *aryana School Education
Board, Bhi+ani, 1992 CPC %1 Hr.
:ducation ,oard (#ile conductin$ t#e e@amination or rec#ec8in$ t#e mar8s disc#ar$ed its statutor) function and
not renderin$ an) services ? 2rder of =orum $rantin$ relief to t#e candidate set aside ? 2.1.(1) CPC 31. 1.P.
Service /atter - Complaint a$ainst suspension order remittin$ in mental torture Complainant not a consumer
under t#e 'ct - 'rem Chand Bishnoi #! Education Secretary, *aryana, 1995(2) CPC %3 Hr.
0Consumer =orum #as no <urisdiction to ad<udicate upon a matter relatin$ to emplo)ment of a "overnment
institution - 2...(1) CPC //. *.P.
0Complaint a$ainst :ducation ,oard for nonpa)ment of $ratuit) and pension 1atter does not relate to a
consumer dispute 7elief declined State of *aryana through D!'!E!9! #! Sumitra De#i, 2..5(2) CPC 3%3 Hr.
21
0Complaint a$ainst private colle$e for violatin$ terms of contract of service for dela) in pa)ment of $ratuit)
amount Complainant is not a consumer 'rincipal, u$and 7al /ational College #! Dr! Sar+an Kumar &ggar+al,
2..%(2) CPC 439 Hr.
Service provider - ,i#ar :ducational ,oard dela)ed result of complainant;s son ? =orum directed 2P to pa)
7s. 129... (it# interest for dela) in result ? 's ,oard is not a service provider9 impu$ned order (as set aside 2..9(3)
CPC 214 S.C.
' universit) in rec#ec8in$ of mar8s etc. is not a service provider ? &o relief is permissible a$ainst *niversit) as
per latest la( laid do(n b) t#e 'pe@ Court 2.1.(2) CPC 5./ &.C.
Settlement of Claim - 2nce complainant #as accepted final settlement of a claim9 #e cannot demand for more
compensation e@cept interest - Kusum 7atta #! &desh College of 'harmacy, 2...(2) CPC 58% Pb.
Speculative compensation - Speculative compensation is not permissible under t#e C.P. 'ct - 2...(1) CPC
/4. Pb.
Speed post ( -ocuments includin$ ,irt# and :ducational certificates sent t#rou$# speed post not delivered to
addressee ? 2P directed to compensate9 complainant ? 2..9(1) CPC 32/ '.P.
:ducation papers sent t#rou$# Speed Post (ere (ron$l) sent to Paris instead to *S' ? Postal aut#orities to pa)
compensation of 7s. 59... 2..9(3) CPC 294 &.C.
Statutor$ 'od$ - ' complaint a$ainst *niversit) (#ic# is a statutor) bod) is not maintainable under
C.P. 'ct - 2...(2) CPC 4.8 *.P.
Statutor$ 'od$0function Complaint a$ainst :ducation ,oard for dela)in$ result for more t#an 3A/ mont#s
? Consumer =ora #ave no <urisdiction as it is a statutor) function disc#ar$ed b) a statutor) bod) ? 2.11(1) CPC /42 &.C.
Statutor$ functions - 5nstitute disc#ar$in$ its statutor) function in $ivin$ stipend to student 1atter cannot be
decided under C. P. 'ct - -ice 'rincipal, -ocational Education 0nstitute #! Sandeep Singh, 2..3(2) CPC 94 Hr.
:ducation ,oard (#ile conductin$ t#e e@amination or rec#ec8in$ t#e mar8s disc#ar$ed its statutor) function and
not renderin$ an) services ? 2rder of =orum $rantin$ relief to t#e candidate set aside ? 2.1.(1) CPC 31. 1.P.
Stipend - 5nstitute disc#ar$in$ its statutor) function in $ivin$ stipend to student 1atter cannot be decided under
C. P. 'ct - -ice 'rincipal, -ocational Education 0nstitute #! Sandeep Singh, 2..3(2) CPC 94 Hr.
Student - ' sc#ool is not responsible (#en a student #as left t#e sc#ool of #is o(n9 if suc# student is not
$iven admission b) anot#er 5nstitution - 1994(2) CPC 414 *.P.
0Cancellation of Sc#olars#ip of a meritorious student (it#out <ust cause is li8el) to 8ill #is >eal for
furt#er studies 'ut#orities are liable for deficienc) in service for suc# act - 1994(1) CPC 52. Hr.
05nfant c#ild admitted in sc#ool cannot be penalised for alle$ed misbe#aviour of #is mot#er Sc#ool
aut#orities directed to refund total fees (it# penalt) - 1998(1) CPC 5%1 C#d.
Student fees - C#ar$in$ fees from students b) unreco$nised :ducation Societies on misrepresentation is
a deficienc) in service - 199%(2) CPC 112 Cerala
Student2s loss - Student suffered loss in studies due to ne$li$ence of *niversit) aut#orities '(arded
7s. 2 lacs as compensation - 199%(1) CPC 292 B3C
Stud$ course - *nilateral c#an$e in course of stud) b) 5nstitution from de$ree to diploma course
7efund of fees (it# 186 interest ordered - 1998(2) CPC 13 C#d.
0*niversit) failed to send stud) course in time after receipt of mone) from students Held liable for
deficient service - 1998(1) CPC 22 Pb.
Su' 3udice matter 0 Sc#ool aut#orit) refused to issue sc#ool leavin$ certificate to mot#er of son as matter of
$uardians#ip (as sub<udice 'ut#orities committed no fault - 2..3(1) CPC %.1 1a#a
Sufficient cause - -ela) of 44 da)s in filin$ appeal !ime spent in official consultation not sufficient $round
for condonation - 'unja5 School Education Board, ohali #! *arpal Singh, 2..3(1) CPC 1/4 Pb.
#ransfer of emplo$ee - "rievance a$ainst non implementation of order of transfer b) Superior 2fficer of
:ducation -epartment -ispute is not covered under Consumer 'ct - 2..2(2) CPC /.1 2rissa
Suicide '$ student ? Complainant;s dau$#ter (as under intense strain of 2P;s Hostel durin$ stud) course
ultimatel) s#e committed suicide ? 2P not found $uilt) b) t#e Hi$# Court ? '(ard of 7s. 5 lacs b) State Commission set
aside ? 2.11(1) CPC 3/ &.C.
22
#uition fee - 7efund of Complainant leavin$ classes of #is o(n after one )ear Held not entitled to
refund of tuition fee 1999(1) CPC 14 Hr.
Complainants dau$#ter attended onl) t#ree out of 2/ mont#s ? 7s. //9%5% deposited fees ? 7efund after deductin$
administrative c#ar$es un<ustified ? 2P $ranted furt#er relief b) =ora belo( 2.1.(3) CPC 54% &.C.
Complainant $ot admission in ,-S Colle$e and deposited a sum of 7s. 59159... but colle$e found to be
unreco$ni>ed ? 2P directed to refund 7s. 59159... (it# 126 interest ? 1odification made b) &ational Commission set
aside 2.1.(3) CPC 199 S.C.
Complainant (as forced to pa) 7s. 23.. as tuition fee ? :ven Sc#ool Eeavin$ Certificate (as denied ? 2P
directed to pa) a sum of 7s. 5.9... (it# 96 p.a. interest 2.1.(2) CPC 418 H.P.
0' student voluntaril) (it#dra(in$ from t#e colle$e is entitled to refund of tuition fees and #ostel
c#ar$es not admission fee - 1998(1) CPC 81 '.P.
0' sum of 7s. 992.. (as deposited (it# appellant for -ental Course Class (as never attended
Complainant entitled to refund of total deposits (it# interest 2../(2) CPC %.9 H.P.
0Coac#in$ 5nstitute can ta8e advance for 23 mont#s but not for (#ole duration !#e) cannot convert
t#emselves into commercial s#ops 7efund of 7s. 2.9... (it# costAcompensation of 7s. 89... ordered
2..4(2) CPC 188 -el#i
--7efusal to refund of =ee before start of tuition classes b) 2P institution -irected to refund total fee (it#
costs of 7s. 59... 2..4(1) CPC %/4 -el#i
02P institution a$reed to refund tuition fee but later on bac8ed out Complainant seat (as allotted to
ot#er student after it (as vacated b) complainant 7efund of amount of fee <ustified 2..%(2) CPC 155
Pondic#err)
,GC instructions Complainant paid coac#in$ fee for t(o )ears but left t#e colle$e after one )ear as
coac#in$ (as not satisfactor) ? Complainant is entitled to refund of fee for one )ear in vie( of *.".C.
instructions 2..9(3) CPC 184 &.C.
"uidelines issued b) *"C to refund of admission fees b) :ducational 5nstitution e@cept 7s. 19... or proportionate
fee is bindin$ on all affiliated institutions 2.1.(2) CPC %19 &.C.
,naffiliated &nstitutions - *niversit) is not bound to ta8e e@amination or publis# t#e result of student of
unaffiliated colle$e - 2..3(1) CPC 358 B#ar.
,nfair #rade Practice 5nstitute publis#ed false advertisement ? Colle$e neit#er affiliated nor
reco$ni>ed for impartin$ education ? 7espondents lost t(o academic )ears ? -eficient service proved ?
5nstitute directed to pa) 7s. 1 lacs as compensation and costs of 7s. 1 lac8 eac# 2..9(1) CPC %./ S.C.
,niversit$ - ' candidate appearin$ in e@amination cannot be re$arded as #irer of service for
consideration of *niversit) - 1998(2) CPC 4.2 H.P.
' universit) in rec#ec8in$ of mar8s etc. is not a service provider ? &o relief is permissible a$ainst *niversit) as
per latest la( laid do(n b) t#e 'pe@ Court 2.1.(2) CPC 5./ &.C.
=ees paid for e@amination to be #eld b) *niversit) is not a consideration for providin$ a service ? &or t#e
candidate is a consumer under CP 'ct Complaint #eld not entertainable 2.1.(2) CPC %9% S.C.
5n matters relatin$ to #oldin$ of e@amination *niversit) disc#ar$es its statutor) function ? ,ut in t#e case of
admission9 it is a service provider for consideration ? Complaint #eld maintainable 2.1.(3) CPC 3.4 *ttra8#and
0' complaint a$ainst *niversit) (#ic# is a statutor) bod) is not maintainable under C.P. 'ct - 2...(2)
CPC 4.8 *.P.
0' student appl)in$ for revaluation of #is result comes under t#e definition of a GConsumerH - 1993 CPC
383 7a<.
Complainant could not appl) for t#e post of lecturer in "ovt. Colle$e due to dela) in declaration of #er
result of computer course ? 2P directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 1.25 lacs (it# 96 interest 2..9(3) CPC
%.9 H.P.
0'fter acceptin$ admission fee from complainant *niversit) revo8ed admission due to not #avin$
necessar) +ualification *niversit) directed to refund fee (it# interest 2..5(1) CPC /9. Pb.
Complainant could not secure ade+uate mar8s as per 7ules and 7e$ulations of *niversit) and (as
declared Gnot +ualifiedH ? *niversit) not liable for deficienc) in service ? 2.1.(1) CPC 354 D.,.
23
*niversities (#ile conductin$ t#e e@aminations and evaluatin$ t#e mar8s disc#ar$e t#eir statutor) duties
and are not consumer under CP 'ct ? 2.1.(1) CPC 2.% &.C.
0Classes not started after received fee for less number of students *niversit) directed to refund t#e
amount (it# cost - 1999(1) CPC 292 Cerala
0Complainant could not $et admission in 1.'. class due to mista8e of *niversit) (#ic# (ron$l)
declared #im unsuccessful *niversit) directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 5.9... (it# costs 2..4(2) CPC
/94 H.P.
--Complainant passed necessar) test and attended Seminar after completin$ s)nopsis 7efusal of
re$istration for 1. P#il b) *niversit) amounts to deficienc) in service - &shu ,osh v. -ice Chancellor, 'unja5i
"ni#ersity, 'atiala, 1999(1) CPC 33/ Pb.
0Complaint a$ainst :ducation ,oard or *niversit) for non issuance of 7oll &o. is not maintainable
under C.P. 'ct - Board of School Education, *aryana v. Bijender, 1994(1) CPC /94 Hr.
0Complaint a$ainst *niversit) for deficienc) in service relatin$ to conduct of e@amination or declaration
of result is not maintainable under Consumer Protection 'ct - 1999(2) CPC 189 Pb.
0Complaint a$ainst *niversit) for dela) in result is not maintainable under t#e Consumer Protection 'ct
- "ni#ersity of Rajasthan, %aipur v. 'an$aj Bhatnagar, 1995(2) CPC %/1 Hr.
0Complaint a$ainst *niversit) for dela)in$ t#e result is not covered under t#e Consumer Protection 'ct -
199/(2) CPC 339 Car.
0Complaint a$ainst *niversit) for irre$ularities in e@amination papers is not maintainable under t#e C.P.
'ct - 2..3(2) CPC 581 &.C.
0Conductin$ of e@amination b) *niversit) bein$ a statutor) dut)9 it does not come under G#irin$ of
service for considerationH - 1998(2) CPC 1% Pb.
0Consumer <urisdiction cannot be invo8ed in disputes re$ardin$ academic matters a$ainst *niversit) -
aharshi Daya /and "ni#ersity, Rohta$ v. Bijender Kumar 6upta, 1995(2) CPC %/2 Hr.
0Consumer <urisdiction is barred onl) in t#e matter of #oldin$ e@aminations b) *niversit) &ot (#ere
admission is $iven t#rou$# misleadin$ advertisement - De#jit Singh Sahota v. 0!0!,!,! College of Engineering,
2..3(1) CPC /39 C#d.
0-eclaration of result or #olin$ of e@amination b) *niversit) is a statutor) dut) and not a #irin$ of
service under CP 'ct 'unja5 "ni#ersity #! Ram Chander, 2..8(1) CPC %99 Hr.
0-ispute bet(een e@aminee and *niversit) does not come (it#in purvie( of Consumer Protection 'ct -
aharshi Dayanand "ni#ersity Rohta$ v. Rominder 4ada#, 1998(1) CPC 389 Hr.
0=ranc#isee of *niversit) $uilt) of deficient service =ranc#isee and not *niversit) #eld liable
Kuru$shetra "ni#ersity #! Da#inder 6iri, 2..5(1) CPC %5 C#d.
0Eoss of one )ear due to dela) in result of reevaluation *niversit) directed to pa) 7s. 119... (it#
compensation and cost - 1993 CPC 38% 1a#a.
07esult declared t#rou$# $a>ette notification but student failed to consult t#e $a>ette *niversit) bein$
not a consumer is not liable for an) ne$li$ence 2..4(2) CPC 553 Pb.
0Some deficienc) in service in (it##oldin$ result of EE.,. course b) *niversit) Compensation reduced
7s. 1... to 7s. 2... - 2..2(1) CPC /83 7a<.
*niversities (#ile conductin$ t#e e@amination are not performin$ an) service for consideration 7elief
declined - Registrar E#aluation "ni#ersity of Karnata$a v. rs! 'oornima 6! Bhandari, 199/(2) CPC 1.1 &.C.
0*niversit) c#an$ed t#e date from 15./.1992 to 1/./.1992 (it#out informin$ t#e complainant
-eficienc) in service proved *niversit) directed to a(ard pass mar8 to student - 199/(1) CPC 5.4 2rissa
0*niversit) failed to send stud) course in time after receipt of mone) from students Held liable for
renderin$ deficient service - 1998(1) CPC 22 Pb.
0*niversit) is not bound to ta8e e@amination or publis# t#e result of student of unaffiliated colle$e -
2..3(1) CPC 358 B#ar.
0*niversit) or ,oard conductin$ e@amination does not come under Consumer <urisdiction - 199%(1) CPC
385 &.C.
0Jaluation or revaluation of mar8s of a candidate b) *niversit) is not a service as defined uAs 2 (1)($) of
t#e C.P. 'ct - 1995(2) CPC %%. &.C.
2/
,niversit$ degree ( Complainant (as refused conferment of a de$ree as s#e appeared in e@amination in
violation of *niversit) re$ulations ? Complainant is not a consumer nor t#e *niversit) is a service provider 2.1.(2)
CPC %9% S.C.
,niversit$ E!amination - ' candidate appearin$ in *niversit) e@amination to $et a de$ree certificate
does not come under t#e definition of a consumer - 2..3(1) CPC 54/ "u<.
,niversit$2s fault ? Complainant not allo(ed to appear in e@amination as #is roll number (as (ron$l)
allotted to anot#er student ? *niversit) directed to pa) compensation of 7s. 2.9... (it# cost 2..9(1) CPC 32
&.C.
2P *niversit) #arassed complainant b) dela)in$ decision on mi$ration certificate b) % )ears on one prete@t or
ot#er ? 2P directed to issue certificate (it# compensation of 7s. 2.9... and cost of 7s. 19... ? 2.11(1) CPC %94 Pb.
,niversit$ Result - Complainant failed to prove loss to #er on account of identical 7oll &umbers &ot
entitled to an) compensation - 1992 CPC 15. &.C.
0-ela) of 11 mont#s in declaration of student;s result after receivin$ t#e re+uired pro<ect report
-eficienc) in service proved 7s. /9... a(arded to student as compensation - 199/(2) CPC 553 Hr.
0-ela) of 4 )ears and % mont#s in revaluation Complainant a(arded 7s. 89... for sufferin$ mental
a$on) - 1993 CPC 383 7a<.
,niversit$0Board ? *niversit) (#ile #oldin$ an e@amination disc#ar$es its statutor) function ? -ela) in result
does not come (it#in t#e ambit of CP 'ct ? 2.11(1) CPC /42 &.C.
,nrecogni%ed college ? 2P colle$e (asted t(o )ears of 1% students b) falsel) statin$ t#at t#e colle$e
(as reco$ni>ed but it (as not so ? 2P directed to refund total deposited amount (it# compensation of 7s.
%.9...A to eac# student ? 2.1.(1) CPC /92 *.P.
4oluntar$ retirement 2nce complainant lecturer sou$#t voluntar) retirement from service of private
colle$e Colle$e aut#orities cannot be #eld liable for an) mental #arassment 'rincipal, u$and 7al /ational College #!
Dr! Sar+an Kumar &ggar+al9 2..%(2) CPC 439 Hr.
5elfare State - ' Delfare State cannot be e@pected to cancel sc#olars#ip of a meritorious student on fictitious
$rounds - State of *aryana v. -ishal &ggar+al, 1994(1) CPC 52. Hr.
5rong result - *niversit) result #ad (ron$l) s#o(n t#e complainant as G=ailH instead of t#e GPassH committin$
a mista8e in mar8s s#o(in$ .5 instead of 5. 2.P. directed to pa) 7s. 559... 2..5(1) CPC %%3 Car.
LLLLL
Consumer Protection Cases
6C.P.C.7
A /onthl$ .a -ournal
Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of
Telephone, ailways, Transport, !lectricity, Housin" Board, Urban Development #uthorities, Industrial and
Consumer #ssociations etc$
De publis# a mont#l) Ea( Bournal namel)
GConsumer %rotection CasesH.
Details of 4olumes
8. 8998 Consumer Protection Cases 1ot in Stoc+
:. 899: Consumer Protection Cases 1ot in Stoc+
;. 899; Consumer Protection Cases 1ot in Stoc+
25
<. 899< =8> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
?. 899< =:> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
@. 899? =8> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
A. 899? =:> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
B. 899@ =8> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
9. 899@ =:> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
8C. 899A =8> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
88. 899A =:> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
8:. 899B =8> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
8;. 899B =:> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
8<. 8999 =8> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
8?. 8999 =:> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
8@. :CCC =8> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
8A. :CCC =:> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
8B. :CC8 =8> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
89. :CC8 =:> Consumer Protection Cases 7s. 5..A onl)
:C. :CC: =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
:8. :CC: =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
::. :CC; =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
:;. :CC; =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
:<. :CC< =8> Consumer Protection Cases 1ot in Stoc+
:?. :CC< =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
:@. :CC? =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
:A. :CC? =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
:B. :CC@ =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
:9. :CC@ =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;C. :CCA =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;8. :CCA =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;:. :CCB =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;;. :CCB =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;<. :CCB =;> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;?. :CC9 =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;@. :CC9 =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;A. :CC9 =;> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;B. :C8C =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
;9. :C8C =:> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
<C. :C8C =;> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
<8. :C88 =8> Consumer Protection Cases Rs. ?BC0- onl$
<:. Annual Su'scription :C88 )or three 4ols Rs. 8;@C0- onl$
<;. Consumer Protection Cases Digest 8998 to :CCB Rs. 8;:C0- onl$
#ddress for Correspondence &
1ana$er9
Consumer Protection Cases
12519 Sector 8C9
C#andi$ar# ? 1%. ..9
P#ones M .14225//83. and .9/14/1/%45
:mail cpcNc#dO)a#oo.com
(((.consumercases.in
LLLL
2%