4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jul 28, 2026 05:01 PM IST
The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission has allowed an appeal filed by Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur, setting aside a district consumer commission order that had directed the university to pay a BEd aspirant Rs 2.55 lakh in compensation and litigation costs over a dispute arising from a Rs 900 entrance examination fee.
The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava and member Sudha Upadhyay were hearing the university’s appeal against the Lakhimpur Kheri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission‘s October 12, 2023 order, which had held the university liable for deficiency in service and awarded the student Rs 900 with interest, Rs 2.5 lakh towards mental and physical agony, and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, the state commission on July 23 held that educational institutions do not fall within the ambit of “service providers” under the Consumer Protection Act and that disputes relating to admissions and examination fees cannot be adjudicated by consumer commissions.
The commission consequently ruled that the student was not a “consumer” in relation to the university and that the District Consumer Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It therefore quashed the entire order passed by the district forum and allowed the university’s appeal.
How dispute began
According to the case records, Kamaljeet Kaur had applied online for admission to the university BEd programme in 2013. She deposited Rs 900 as the entrance examination fee through Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank) on March 5, 2013, before the prescribed deadline.
The student alleged that despite depositing the fee in time, she was not issued an admit card because the university informed her that the examination fee had not been received within the stipulated period. As a result, she claimed she was prevented from appearing in the entrance examination. After serving a legal notice to the bank on March 14, 2013 and receiving no satisfactory response, she approached the district consumer commission seeking compensation for the alleged financial loss and mental agony.
Bank defended its role
Indian Bank argued before the consumer forum that there had been no deficiency in its services. It stated that the university had opened its account with the bank on January 9, 2013 and that the Rs 900 deposited by the student had been transferred to the university’s account well before the prescribed deadline. The bank therefore maintained that it had fulfilled its obligations and could not be held responsible for the student’s grievance.
Story continues below this ad
The university, however, did not appear before the district consumer commission despite service of notice, leading to ex parte proceedings against it in June 2015. The district forum eventually ruled in favour of the student in October 2023.
Why state commission disagreed
- While hearing the appeal, the state commission focused primarily on the maintainability of the complaint rather than the factual controversy surrounding the payment of the examination fee.
- The commission observed that the university is an educational institution and the complainant was merely an aspirant seeking admission.
- Referring to the Supreme Court‘s judgment in Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur, it held that educational institutions are outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act for disputes concerning admissions, examinations and fees.
- Consequently, no consumer-service provider relationship existed between the parties.
- Holding that the district consumer commission’s findings were legally unsustainable, the state commission allowed the appeal, set aside the October 12, 2023 order in its entirety and directed that each party bear its own litigation costs.
- It also ordered that any amount deposited by the university while filing the appeal be refunded to it along with accrued interest in accordance with law.
Consumer takeaway
Disputes over admissions, examination fees, certificates or other academic matters generally cannot be pursued before consumer commissions, as educational institutions are not treated as service providers under consumer law.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Uttar Pradesh helpline: 1800180030) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
