DIRECTOR (ADMISSION), ORISSA ENGINEERING COLLEGE vs AJAYA KUMAR RATH

THIS appeal has been filed against the final order passed by the District Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case No. 97 of 1994. The opposite party in the said case is in appeal. The appellant is represented by Counsel and the respondents are represented through respondent No. 2 who is the father of respondent No. 1. Their case in brief is that respondent No. 1 took admission in an Engineering College for the academic Session 1989-90 on payment of Rs. 16,985/- on 17.7.1989 and deposited the caution money amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. After completion of his B.E. (Computer Science and Engineering) course, he left the institution on 31.5.93 and duly obtained a College Leaving Certificate. The respondents requested the present appellant several times to refund the caution money which was deposited by the complainant No. 1. But since the same was not refunded, they filed the aforesaid case. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the case before the District Forum, it was stated by the opposite parties in their show-cause that respondent No. 1 did not pay the enhanced dues of tuition fee of Rs. 1,500/- per annum in accordance with the resolution of the Governing Body of the institution. It was also stated in the show-cause that in similar situation, the High Court having been approached by another student in O.J.C. No. 3309 of 1993 an order was passed as follows therein : "If it is a case of caution deposit, then after deducting the money which the petitioner may be liable to pay towards loss or damages to the College property, the petitioners are entitled to receive the balance. The College Authorities may examine the cases of the petitioners and pass appropriate order."

The District Forum after considering the case of both parties, came to a conclusion that as per the terms of the prospectus, the caution money could not be adjusted against any other dues payable by the student and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is entitled to get back the caution money of Rs. 5,000/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 1.6.93 and also awarded a cost of Rs. 500/- against the present appellant.

IN the appeal, the main contention of the appellant is that the District Forum went wrong in entertaining the complaint of complainant inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 is not a consumer as defined in the Act, and the dispute presented for consideration by the District Forum was not a consumer dispute as per the definition given in the Act. The respondent No. 2 who argued the case in person contended that since the complainant No. 1 had paid tuition fee, capitation fee and also deposited the caution money, he is entitled to certain services from the educational institution and, therefore, he is a consumer and is entitled to redressal under the Consumer Protection Act. We have carefully considered the contention of both parties on this point. It is not a case where the respondent No. 1 alleged deficiency in service against the present appellant alleging that inspite of payment of tuition fees, education was not imparted or was not duly imparted. Tuition fee is paid by a student in an educational institution for being provided with the education as per the curriculum. If at all a student becomes a consumer and is entitled to services from the educational institution it must be confined to the matter of teaching and not for all other purposes. The definition of consumer relevant for the purposes of the present case is that a person who hires or avails of services for consideration from another is a consumer with relation to the services availed of or hired. The tuition fees by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a consideration for any other service, other than tuition. The grievance of the complainant in this case is that the present appellant did not refund the caution money deposited by the complainant No. 1 after the session was over. Refund of caution money is evidently subject to deduction of any amount payable by a student for which caution money was kept from him. We are not considering in the present case as to whether or not the unpaid tuition money would be adjusted against the caution money deposited. We are only concerned to find out whether the complainant becomes a consumer to make a grievance against me alleged wrong adjustment of the caution money or even for non-payment of caution money to a student. In our considered opinion, tuition fee has no nexus whatsoever as to how the caution money will be dealt with in the educational institution. It may be that the action of the authorities of the educational institution was unauthorised or it may be that they were justified in withholding the caution money or to allow deduction there from. The aforesaid question may be answered by some authority having jurisdiction and not by a Consumer Forum created under the Consumer Protection Act. Since the complainant is not a consumer in relation to the grievance made by him, the District Forum went wrong in entertaining the case as a consumer dispute. The irresistible conclusion would be that the case was not maintainable and the order passed by the District Forum was wholly without jurisdiction. It is, however, open to the respondent to take recourse to any other Court/Tribunal/Forum if so advised and if law so authorises. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed. _____________