OZA NIRAV KANUBHAI-/ vs CENTRE HEAD, APPLE INDUSTRIES LTD.

THE appellant is the original complainant who has alleged that he was a student in Apple Computer Education at Rajkot since 1990. According to him Apple Computer Education is a fully professional institute. In the month of November/December 1990 while attending the class in the said institute he complained to the authorities regarding misbehaviour and neglecting attitude and prejudice of one of the faculty members towards him. Since no relief was granted he undergone mental tension. THEreafter the faculty member refused to check his home work and programming work. According to him the faculty member insulted him. THErefore he approached the Centre-head with his father but the problem was not solved. Ultimately the Head of the institute Rajesh Nissar came to Rajkot. THE complainant approached him for the solution of his problem but he threatened him with the result that he became persona non grata and he could not attend the class though full fees have been paid by him. He has also made a complaint regarding some students. Ultimately on 5.1.91 a telegram was sent to him without giving proper reasons or opportunity that he has been resticated from the institution. He, therefore, stated that the said order being illegal and void he had a right to get refund of the fees paid to the institute with damage and claimed Rs. 8,071/- as refund and prayed to direct the institute to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages.

THE question that requires to be decided here is as to whether the appellant/complainant is a consumer of service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is true that the complaint is by a student who has not made proper averments as to the relation with the institute. This institute is not a recognised institute under any University Act or under any statutory provisions. THE relations are, therefore, contractual. THE institute is offering service by imparting computer knowledge to the persons who join their classes. Some institutes are also making very tall claims and thereby creates big business and recovers huge amounts by way of fees. It cannot therefore be denied that the relationship between the so-called student and the institute which is imparting/offering computer education is that of the provider of services and recipient of service. THEy will squarely fall within the meaning of Section, 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CONSUMER Protection Act. THE provisions of Section 2(1)(r) read with Section 36(a) of the MRTP Act is also applicable if some institutes are following unfair trade practices. When a non-expert person like student comes before the Consumer Forum, the complaint should be liberally construed and if necessary they should be permitted to amend so that proper issues can be framed and the matter can be properly decided. THE relationship being contractual as stated above, the complaint ought not to have dismissed on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer. He has paid the charges for services and if that service is denied or if there is any deficiency in service the complainant is entitled for the relief provided under Section 14 of the Act. Since we have not decided anything on merit and the observations we have made regarding institutes are only general and not with regard to the respondent, the District Forum will give opportunity to the complainant to amend the complaint and if the complaint is so amended the District Forum will examine it on merits and on the basis of evidence tendered before the District Forum. In these circumstances, we shall have to remand the-matter to the District Forum by holding that the complainant is a consumer of service and there may be a case regarding unfair trade practice.

Mr. Buch, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has requested that an opportunity may also be given to the opposite parties to have their version before the District Forum. We think that this would facilitate the proper decision of this complaint. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded to District Forum to decide in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all the parties to have their version. The cost of the appeal will be the cost in the cause. Appeal allowed.