The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether education is a service under the Consumer Protection Law.
A bench of D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna noted that a similar legal matter is pending trial in another case and associated the case with this one.
“In view of the pending Civil Appeal No. 3504 of 2020 (Manu Solanki et al v Vinayaka Mission University), the question of whether education is a service within the consumer protection law is pending before this Court License granted civil apeal “, declared the magistracy in its order of October 29.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal from a Lucknow resident challenging an order from the National Board of Appeals for Consumer Disputes (NCRDC) that educational institutions are not included in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and education, which includes extracurricular activities such as swimming, it is not a “service” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In this case, the son of a man was studying at a school that offered various ‘summer camp’ activities in 2007, including swimming, and invited students to participate by paying ₹ 1,000. On May 28, 2007 around 9:30 am, he received an urgent call from the school asking him to come immediately because his son was not feeling well.
Upon arriving at the school, the man was informed that his son had been taken to the hospital because he had drowned in the school swimming pool. He then rushed to the hospital where he learned that his son had been brought in dead.
Subsequently, he filed a consumer complaint with the State Commission alleging negligence and poor service by the school and claimed 20 lakh as compensation for the death of his son, as well as 2 lakh due to the mental agony suffered by him and 55,000 for costs. litigation. .
The State Commission dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer. This order was challenged in the NCDRC.
The NCDRC held that education, which includes extracurricular activities such as swimming, is not a “service” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
He agreed with the State Commission’s opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complaint that is not covered by the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is inadmissible.