Education, Including Co-Curricular Activities, Not 'Service' Within Meaning Of Consumer Protection Act : NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has reiterated that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not apply to Educational Institutions, and that co-curricular activities such as swimming do not fall within the scope of "service" as defined under the Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The instant Appeal had been preferred against an order dated 03.06.2016 of the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, by the father of a student who had been enrolled at the Respondent School. It was submitted that the School offered various Summer Camp activities, including swimming, and invited students to participate by paying Rs. 1000/-, which the Appellant had done.

The Appeal states that on 28.05.2007, he received an urgent call from the School and, upon reaching the School, he was informed that his son had died in the swimming pool. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission alleging negligence and deficiency in service by the School and claimed Rs. 22,55,000 as compensation for death of his son, the mental agony suffered by him, and for the cost of litigation.

The claim was contested by the Respondent School and the State Commission dismissed the complaint on account of the Appellant not being a Consumer of the School. This was subsequently challenged before the NCDRC.

WHAT DID THE NCDRC SAY?

The NCDRC, with Hon'ble Mr. C. Viswanath as the Presiding Member, referred to the cases of Anupama College of Engineering v. Gulshan Kumar & Anr wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that "educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in a matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be question of deficiency of service" and Manu Solanki and Ors v. Vinayaka Mission University wherein a larger Bench of NCDRC had held that "such incidental activities of an Education Institutional while imparting education would also not amount to rendering any service under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".

Reference was also made to the NCDRC decision in Manu Solanki and Ors. v Vinayaka Mission University which held that an educational institution will not come within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Following these precedents, the NCDRC observed :

"It is settled law, as stated in the aforementioned precedents set by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt as well as this Commission, that Educational Institutions do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and education which includes co-curricular activities such as swimming, is not a "service" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I,therefore, concur with the view of the State Commission that the Complainant is not a consumer and the Complaint not being covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable"

In light of the above, the NCDRC concurred with the view of the State Commission that the Complainant is not a consumer and therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable as it is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It may also be noted that the Manu Solanki decision held that coaching centres will come within the scope of Consumer Protection Act.

The Manu Solanki decision held as follows :

"...we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".

Following Manu Solanki decision, a District Consumer Forum in Bengaluru recently directed a private coaching centre to refund fees to a parent after finding that there was deficiency of service on its part.

Advocate for the Appellant: Pawan Kumar Ray
Advocate for the Respondent: Murari Kumar
Case No.: First Appeal No. 852 of 2016
Click here to read/download the judgment