Surat: A consumer court in Surat has rejected a businessman’s appeal seeking directions to a private school to refund the ‘hefty’ fees of his daughter on the ground that the institute had failed to provide quality education.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Surat, ruled that “education institute doesn’t fall under the Consumer Protection Act’ and rejected the 35-year-old businessman’s appeal to cancel the recognition of the trust-run school besides refund of Rs 84,700.
The businessman from Parvat Patiya area had approached the commission in 2018, alleging that the school did not provide education as per the CBSE standards even as it charged ‘very high’ fees. He also accused the school of mental harassment of the child.
The appeal was rejected by the commission’s chairman PP Mekhia and members Purvi Joshi, Tirthesh Mehta.
The businessman had even approached the district education officer (DEO) saying that the school was ‘selling’ books to students in violation of rules.
Shreyas Desai, advocate for the school, argued that the relationship between the school and a student is not that of a trader and consumer. “The court accepted this argument and rejected the complaint,” said Desai,” who also stressed that the school trust not ‘a person ‘.
The commission also accepted the submission that the education institute does not fall under Consumer Protection Act.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Surat, ruled that “education institute doesn’t fall under the Consumer Protection Act’ and rejected the 35-year-old businessman’s appeal to cancel the recognition of the trust-run school besides refund of Rs 84,700.
The businessman from Parvat Patiya area had approached the commission in 2018, alleging that the school did not provide education as per the CBSE standards even as it charged ‘very high’ fees. He also accused the school of mental harassment of the child.
The appeal was rejected by the commission’s chairman PP Mekhia and members Purvi Joshi, Tirthesh Mehta.
The businessman had even approached the district education officer (DEO) saying that the school was ‘selling’ books to students in violation of rules.
Shreyas Desai, advocate for the school, argued that the relationship between the school and a student is not that of a trader and consumer. “The court accepted this argument and rejected the complaint,” said Desai,” who also stressed that the school trust not ‘a person ‘.
The commission also accepted the submission that the education institute does not fall under Consumer Protection Act.