NEW DELHI: The Uttar Pradesh state consumer commission has held that students cannot invoke consumer protection law in disputes over admission or examination fees charged by educational institutions. Setting aside an earlier district commission order that had awarded Rs 2.55 lakh to a student, the state commission ruled that educational institutions do not provide a “service” under the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, consumer courts lack jurisdiction over such disputes.How did the student’s exam fee dispute begin?The dispute arose in March 2013, when Kamaljeet Kaur applied online for the B.Ed entrance examination conducted by Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur. She deposited the Rs 900 entrance examination fee through a bank on March 5, 2013, before the last date prescribed by the university, as per the court order.However, when she approached the university to collect her admit card, she was informed that her examination fee had not been received within time. As a result, she was not allowed to appear for the entrance examination. She later served a legal notice on the bank, alleging deficiency in service, but claimed she received no response. According to her complaint, she suffered mental agony, financial loss and lost an academic year because of the incident.She then approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Lakhimpur Kheri. In October 2023, the district commission directed the university to refund the Rs 900 examination fee, pay Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation for mental and physical suffering and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.The university challenged that order before the Uttar Pradesh state consumer commission. It argued that disputes between a student and an educational institution cannot be treated as consumer disputes because students are not “consumers” and educational institutions are not “service providers” under the Consumer Protection Act.Consumer court jurisdiction over education disputesThe bench comprising President Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava and Member Sudha Upadhyay accepted the university’s contention. It observed that the relationship between a student seeking admission and an educational institution does not fall within the scope of consumer law.The commission noted that it was an admitted position that the respondent was seeking admission to the university. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010), it said educational institutions have been kept outside the definition of service providers and disputes relating to admissions and fees cannot be decided by consumer courts.“According to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, educational institutions are outside the ambit of service providers and consumer courts have no jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to admission and fees,” the commission noted.The bench further held that since the dispute did not involve a consumer relationship between the university and the student, the district commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or award compensation.“The respondent/student cannot be treated as a consumer and there exists no service provider-consumer relationship between the university and the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Commission is unsustainable in law,” the commission further noted.Accordingly, the state commission allowed the university’s appeal and quashed the district commission’s October 2023 order awarding the student compensation.“The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the district consumer commission is hereby set aside,” the bench concluded.The commission also directed that any amount deposited by the university while filing the appeal be returned to it along with accrued interest.
