Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, a statutory university established under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The university sought a writ of prohibition to restrain Respondent No. 11, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yeotmal, from entertaining Consumer Complaint No. 88 of 2013 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 (students). The students had filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service regarding their education. The university contended that the consumer forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as education is not a 'service' under the Act. The court, after hearing the parties, held that educational institutions providing education for a fee are not rendering 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court reasoned that education is a noble mission and not a commercial transaction, and students are not 'consumers' under the Act. Therefore, the consumer forum lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the proceedings before the consumer forum, and ruled that the consumer forum had no jurisdiction to try, entertain, or decide the complaint.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Educational Service - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(d), Section 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The issue was whether a statutory university providing education for a fee is a 'service' under the Act and whether a consumer forum can entertain complaints against educational institutions. The court held that education is not a service and students are not consumers, as education is a noble mission and not a commercial transaction. The consumer forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding education. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, a statutory university, invoked writ jurisdiction to challenge the consumer forum's jurisdiction. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the proceedings before the consumer forum, holding that the consumer forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a statutory university providing education for a fee falls within the definition of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether a consumer forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints against educational institutions.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, and held that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 2(1)(o)
- Section 2(1)(d)
- Section 12
- educational service
- jurisdiction
- writ of prohibition
- writ of certiorari
