Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
6. On the incipient view, the respondent did not take the aforesaid offer, but instead has chosen to come back to India with immediate action by filing his representation to the appellant. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint, notwithstanding the offer made by the appellant to mitigate the loss with respect to the additional one year, as offered by the Republic of Philippines for the bridge course after the abolition of the MBBS programme.
7. All the Forums below, including the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’), rejected the appellant’s response and accordingly it was asked to pay a sum of $12000, apart from compensation and costs. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us.
8. The counsel for the appellant contends that though the complaint per se is not maintainable against the educational institution, apart from lack of territorial jurisdiction, the issue can be decided on merits as the matter is seized of by a larger Bench in Civil Appeal Diary No. 12901 of 2020 dated 15.10.2020 as to whether the educational institution is amenable or not, to be decided by a Consumer Forum.
9. It is submitted that the appellant is only a facilitator and, in any case, it has no control over the decision of the Republic of Philippines. It is a policy decision taken by the said country and the fact that the respondent got admitted with the concerned College and completed one year is not in dispute. The decision of the Republic of Philippines (Office of CHED) being a subsequent one, there cannot be any liability fasten upon the appellant.
10. Before venturing into the above contentions raised, the scope of the appeal invoking Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was invoked at the time of filing of the appeal, requires consideration. Section 27A facilitates a further appeal to this Court against the order passed by the National Commission. Such an appeal can be adjudicated upon by this Court both on facts and law. Since the appeal provides for adjudication on the aforesaid two aspects, this Court can decide the matter not only on the law but facts as well. HCMI EDUCATION v. NARENDRA PAL SINGH [M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]
11. On merit, we find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the documents would indicate that the appellant was acting on behalf of CHED also, it played no role in the policy decision made. The said documents are to be understood contextually. The role of the appellant stops with the admission being secured, which it did. The policy decision of the Republic of Philippines cannot be questioned before the Consumer Forum.
12. In any case, such a policy decision cannot be the basis for seeking redressal against the appellant. The appellant cannot be considered to be a part of the Republic of Philippines or the Office of CHED for the policy decision changes made, which was made not pertaining to a single institution, but the whole Republic.
13. On facts, the respondent did complete one year. At the time of admission and continuation in the year 2007-2008 there was no problem with the MBBS course. It was only in pursuance to the decision as aforesaid made by the Republic of Philippines, the students were offered to continue with the alternative course, which the appellant has not chosen whatsoever. This is an aspect that the Forums have failed to take note of in the correct perspective.
14. On the said analysis, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed and dismiss the complaint. As there is no vicarious liability that can be fastened on the appellant and the appellant’s role cannot be stretched to the policy decision of the Republic of Philippines, the appeal stands allowed. Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed. (Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)