—Order— —By this appeal, under sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. LXVIII of 1986) (for short the Act herein), the opposite-party-appellant no. 2 and the Educational Society of Sophia through the Principal, Sophia Girls Higher Secondary School, Vallabhnagar, Kota (appellant No. 1) question the legality and correctness of the order dated 1-8-89 passed in Complaint Case No. 360/89 by the District Forum, Kota. The complainant-respondent Shri Kailash Chandra Singhal is Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kota. He lodged a complaint before the District Forum, Kota on 5-7-89. It was stated by him that his daughter Sushri Juhi Singhal is a student reading in Class II of Sophia Girls Higher Secondary School, Vallabhnagar, Kota. It was stated that from her Rs. 80/- p.m. are charged as tuition fee and Rs. 20/- are realised for building fund. The averments relating to gratuity, library, games fee etc. were also made. It was prayed that the fees, which have been realised improperly from the students of the school should be ordered to be refunded and it may be directed not to recover improper fees. A direction was sought that the school should be bound to realise fees in accordance with the prescribed fees of the Government schools and the Schools managed by the Education Department. . . - 2. An application was submitted on 5-7-89 that the documents mentioned in the application, which are in possession and power of the opposite party may be summoned. The complaint was registered on 6-7-89. Notice was ordered to be issued for the hearing of 18-7-89 to the opposite-party. It was recorded on 18-7-89 that father Lobo and Sister Mabel are present on behalf of the opposite-party. They wanted time to file reply. They were allowed seven days time. An order was made on that day that tuition fee amounting to Rs. 80/- will be recovered from the students of Sophia Girls School and with respect to other items, orders will be passed later on and that the amount should be deposited in cash and receipts will be issued for the same. The next date fixed was 25.7.89. Shri Maloo, appearing on behalf of the opposite-party filed replies to the complaints and also to the. two applications filed on behalf of the complainant. There preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the opposite-party. The next date fixed was 25.7.89. Shri Maloo, appearing on behalf of the opposite-party filed replies to the complaints and also to the. two applications filed on behalf of the complainant. There preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the opposite-party. Shri Maloo, the representative of the opposite-party, submitted an application for grant of permission to the opposite-party to present its case before the District Forum through a lawyer on the ground that the complainant is a person well-versed in law. The District Forum was of the opinion that from the reply filed by Shri Maloo, it appeared that he is competent to put the defence of the opposite-party properly and in future, if there is any necessity, the permission for availing the services of lawyer will be given. Amongst others, on that day, the following order was passed :— ^^Jh ekyw dks ;g vknsk fn;k tkrk gS fd os vkxkeh rkjh[k ij ikuh rFkk fctyh ls lEcfU/kr fcyksa ds Hkqxrku dh jkfk ds lEcU/k esa crk;saxsA og jkfk Hkh crk;saxs tks mUgksaus fctyh foHkkx vkSj ikuh foHkkx dks vnk dh gSA blds lkFk gh og jkfk Hkh crk;saxs tks mUgksaus xr nks o"kksZ esa Ldwy ds i<+us okys Nk=ksa ls izkIr dh gSA** The District Forum also ordered that the opposite-party should produce the documents relating to uniform, and sale of books of the students on 27-7-89. On 27-7-89, the accounts relating to water and electricity were submitted by Shri Maloo. It was ordered that Shri Maloo should produce on the next day the details of the amounts deposited for water and electricity in the concerned departments by the school. The District Forum ordered on that day that they (Members) will go to the school next day to see the arrangements in connection with the water and electricity for the students. The inspection was done on 28-7-89 in connection with water and electricity and books. On that day, Shri Maloo submitted a statement relating to water and electricity charges and also the expenditure incurred in connection with the articles. Arguments were heard, the record was seen and the complaint was ordered to be listed for orders on 1-8-89. On 1-8-89, the order under appeal was passed. On that day, Shri Maloo submitted a statement relating to water and electricity charges and also the expenditure incurred in connection with the articles. Arguments were heard, the record was seen and the complaint was ordered to be listed for orders on 1-8-89. On 1-8-89, the order under appeal was passed. The material part of the order is as under :— ^^vUr esa ;g vknsk fn;k tkrk gS fd foi{kh Ldwy esa vc rd tks 20@& dh jkfk N% ekgh fctyh vkSj ikuh dh en esa izkIr dh gS mlesa ls og 10@& vius ikl j[ksxk vkSj cdk;k 10@& dh jkfk izfr fo|kFkhZ ls mlds }kjk tek dh tkus okyh Qhl dks vkxkeh ekg esa lek;ksftr djsxkA bl lEcU/k esa og viuh cSad dks vko;d funsZk nsxk vkSj vU; mfpr dk;Zokgh djsxkA bl o"kZ 20@& N% ekgh vkSj olwy ugha dh tkosxhA It was mentioned in the order that this order is confined, to the amounts recovered from the students for water and electricity and in regard to other items, building fund, tuition fee, gratuity, purchase of books etc., separate proceedings will be taken; This order was signed and pronounced by the President and Shri Ramesh Chandra Saxena, Member of the District Forum. 3. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed as aforesaid. 4. Notice was ordered to be issued to the complainant-respondent. He filed reply to the memo of appeal and objections on 25.8.89. An application was submitted by Shri M.S. Bhargava, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent that Unity and Welfare Society may be allowed to intervene in the appeal as it is a common cause. Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants rightly did not oppose the request and so we permitted the Consumer Unity and Welfare Society to intervene in the appeal. It is represented by Shri M. S. Bhargava who is also counsel for the respondent. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the record and order under appeal with requisite care. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions : (1) that the order passed by the District Forum is without jurisdiction as it could not entertain, try and decide the complaint against an educational institutions as the educational institutions are not covered by the provisions of the Act and the complainant cannot be called a consumer within the meaning of sec. 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act; (2) that appellant no. 1 Educational Society of Sophia, Gumanpura, Kota imparts education to the students and this cannot be equated with the hiring of the service, as envisaged by sec. 2(l)(d)(ii) and also sec. 2(o) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, there is neither any "consumer dispute" nor services rendered are such so that the complainant can invoke the provisions of the Act; (3) that the complainant has no locus standi to file complaint, for, he is not a student and he has not filed the complaint as Guardian of the minor as representative of the students in general; (4) that the District Forum assumed jurisdiction which it had none by interfering with the affairs of the Society in regard to the justification of the charges under the heads-water and electricity as if the Society was meant for rendering services of supplying water and electricity; (5) that the District Forum was unjustified in doing the site inspection of the school on 28-7-89 and making enquiries: (6) that the District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction when it enquired into the expenses being incurred by the Society and fees being charged from the students; (7) that the parents/guardians are called in the school to discuss about the affairs of the school concerning their children, but the complainant has never bothered to come to the school and discuss any of the issues raised by him during the past years for the reasons best known to him. May be that he is a Judicial Officer and so he does not want to come to school; (8) that the procedure adopted by the District Forum in passing the order on 1-8-89 itself shows that it was acting prejudicially against the opposite-party-appellants and no reasonable opportunity was given to the opposite-party. In this connection, attention was drawn to the proceedings dated 18-7-89, 25-7-89, 27-7-89 and 28-7-89; (9) that the District Forum committed illegality and material irregularity in not allowing opposite-party to be represented by an advocate/legal practitioner which has affected the decision of the case on merits. 6. Cross-objections on behalf of the complainant-respondent were submitted regarding the order dated 1-8-89 praying that the order dated 1-8-89 passed by the District Forum, Kota, allowing the opposite-party to charge Rs. 6. Cross-objections on behalf of the complainant-respondent were submitted regarding the order dated 1-8-89 praying that the order dated 1-8-89 passed by the District Forum, Kota, allowing the opposite-party to charge Rs. 10/- annually on account of electricity and water charges from each student including the daughter of the complainant may be set aside and that any other relief, which the Commission may deem fit, may be granted to the complainant-respondent. At the time of hearing, the cross-objections were not pressed. Written submissions were submitted on behalf of the complainant-respondent, strongly opposing the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Some other objections were also taken in the additional pleas of the written submissions. Two preliminary objections raised—(1) that the Educational Society of Sophia has no locus standi to file the appeal and (2) that the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation and has been enacted to achieve social justice for better protection of the interests of the consumers and so, the definition of consumer should be interpreted as per the spirit of the Act. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. 7. In view of the oral arguments, made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following material questions emerge for our consideration : (1) Whether the District Forum committed illegality and material irregularity in not allowing the opposite-party to be represented through an advocate/legal practitioner and that has affected the decision of the case on merits ? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the District Forum is bad for it was passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the opposite-party ? (3) Whether the District Forum, Kota has no jurisdiction under the Act to pass the impugned order in regard to the water and electricity? 8. We propose to examine the above questions ad-seriatim. Question No. 1 : 9. The complainant in this case is an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. After the service of the notice of the complaint on the Principal, Sophia Girls Higher Secondary School, Vallabhnagar, Kota, a power was filed along with the application stating that Shri Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate, has been authorised to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the opposite-party. The complainant in this case is an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. After the service of the notice of the complaint on the Principal, Sophia Girls Higher Secondary School, Vallabhnagar, Kota, a power was filed along with the application stating that Shri Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate, has been authorised to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the opposite-party. On 25-7-89, an application was submitted on behalf of the Principal, Sophia Girls Higher Secondary School, stating, interalia, that the opposite-party may be permitted to engage an advocate/legal practitioner for conducting the case. It appears from the order dated 25.7.89, while dealing with the question of representation by an advocate/legal practitioner, on behalf of the opposite-party, that it is not necessary to pass any order on this application at that stage. It was observed :— ^^vHkh rd dh fLFkfr ;g gS fd Jh ekyw us tks Hkh tokc isk fd;s gS buls ,slk vkHkkflr gksrk gS fd os bl fookn ds lEcU/k esa iwjs tkudkj gS vkSj os bl fookn ds lEcU/k esa viuk i{k izLrqr djus esas iwjh rjg ls leFkZ gSA ysfdu ;fn Hkfo"; esa ;g vko;drk gqbZ fd odhy dh lgk;rk nh tkos rks ml le; nh tkosxhA Until the passing of the impugned order, no specific permission was granted to the opposite-party to represent its case through a lawyer. No such permission was necessary as there is nothing in the Act to show that a party to the consumer dispute is not entitled to represent its case through an advocate/ legal practitioner. There are enactments like the National Security Act, 1980, COFEPOSA etc. where, there is a specific provision that nothing in the section dealing with the procedure of Advisory Board shall entitle any person against whom an order for detention has been made to appear by any legal practitioner in any manner connected with the reference to the Advisory Board. Under the Act and the Rules made thereunder there is no prohibition that the party will not be permitted to be represented by legal practitioner/advocate. There is no bar. Agent has been defined in rule 2(b) of the Rules, 1987 to mean a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint or appeal or reply on its behalf before the State Commission or the District Forum. This does not mean that a legal practitioner/advocate cannot represent a party before the District Forum or the State Commission. Agent has been defined in rule 2(b) of the Rules, 1987 to mean a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint or appeal or reply on its behalf before the State Commission or the District Forum. This does not mean that a legal practitioner/advocate cannot represent a party before the District Forum or the State Commission. Aid can be taken from the provisions contained in O. III, r. 2, C.P.C. which deals with the recognised Agents, on the basis of the definition of the agent as given in r. 2 (b) of the Rules, it cannot be inferred that there is prohibition of availing of the services of an advocate/legal practitioner before the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be. Sec. 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides that Advocates to be the only recognised class of persons entitled to practise law. S. 30 deals with rights of Advocates to practice. This section does not confer on a litigant a right to be represented by an Advocate. It presupposes that a litigant is entitled to be represented by an Advocate and if a person is not otherwise free to appoint an agent this section will not authorise him to do so. Before the National Commission, New Delhi, Advocates do appear for the parties. As the main Act does not bar the engagement of a legal practitioner/advocate for representing a party before the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, the District Forum was not right and justified in not permitting the opposite-party to avail of the services of the advocate or legal practitioner to represent the case on its behalf before the District Forum. The opposite-party had/has a right to be represented by an advocate. It is needless to emphasise that for failure to permit to be represented by an advocate/ legal practitioner, as desired by the opposite-party, it has been materially prejudiced in defending its case. The first question formulated by us is, therefore, answered in favour of the appellants and against the complainant-respondent. Question No. 2 10. It may be recalled that the original complaint which was filed on 18-7-89 did not relate to the recovery of the amounts on account of water and electricity. The opposite-party-appellants submitted replies to the applications submitted by the complainant on 25-7-89. Question No. 2 10. It may be recalled that the original complaint which was filed on 18-7-89 did not relate to the recovery of the amounts on account of water and electricity. The opposite-party-appellants submitted replies to the applications submitted by the complainant on 25-7-89. The opposite-party had no occasion to contest regarding the amounts realised from the students under the heads—electricity and water. Despite this, on 25-7-89, directions pertaining to electricity and water were given by the District Forum to Shri Maloo, appearing for the opposite-party. As per the order dated 25-7-89, replies were given to the queries made by the District Forum regarding realisation of water and electricity fees. It was on 27-7-89 that the complainant submitted an application that on account of inadvertance, in the complaint dated 5-7-89 the averments relating to recovery of the amounts on account of water and electricity fees were not made and so a prayer was made that the amounts realised on that account may be refunded and a direction may be given to the opposite-party not to realise the amount. After filing of this application, as stated above inspection was done and the opposite-party was directed to give details in that connection and, thereafter, the arguments were heard and the impugned order was passed on 1.8.89. This shows that the opposite-party-appellant was not given reasonable opportunity to contest the allegation of the complainant regarding recovery of electricity and water fees from the students. The District Forum, without any pleadings of the parties in respect of the electricity and water fees, gave certain directions which have been reproduced hereinabove on 25.7.89, two days before the application which was filed by the complainant on 27.7.89 as this was not mentioned in the original complaint by inadvertance. It may be mentioned here that the version of the case was filed on 25.7.89. In the absence of any complaint, in regard to the realisation of water and electricity fees, merely on the basis of the application that these amounts were inadvertantly left out in the original complaint dated 5.7.89, the impugned order, so far as it relates to recovery of electricity and water fees from the complainants daughter and other directions could not be made. There has been miscarriage of justice in this regard. We will examine the question of jurisdiction while dealing with Question no. 3. There has been miscarriage of justice in this regard. We will examine the question of jurisdiction while dealing with Question no. 3. Suffice it to mention that the opposite-party had no reasonable opportunity to meet the case of the complainant in respect of electricity and water fees. Question no. 2 is also decided in favour of the opposite-party-appellant and against the complainant-respondent. Question No. 3. 11. The complainant has filed the complaint and initiated proceedings under the Act. It was submitted before the District Forum that the provisions of the Act are not attracted in this case for various reasons. In the reply dated 25-7-89, an objection was taken in para 2, which reads as under :— ^^2- izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= fof/k fo:) gS rFkk dUtwej izksVsDlu ,DV ds vUrxZr fopkj.kh; ekeyksa dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA In the version of the case, a preliminary objection was taken that a student is not a "consumer, school is not a trader and imparting of education by the educational institution is not service under the Act and so, the complainant could not invoke the provisions of the Act. The original complaint pertains to tuition fee, children association fee, gratuity fee, library fee etc. In the application that was submitted on 27.7.89, it was stated that in the year 1988-89 under the head electricity and water Rs. 20/- per annum were realised on account of water and electricity fees whereas in 1989-90, it has been raised to Rs. 40/- per student and so whatever amounts, have been realised in 1988-89 and 1989-90 should be ordered to be refunded, as no amount on account of electricity and water fees was realised in 1987-88. The question is whether such a relief can be granted under the Act. 12. In the School diary of the Sophia Higher Secondary School, under the head Brief History of the Institution it is mentioned as under :— "Sophia School, Vallabhnagar, Kota established in 1965 is run and managed by the Mission Sisters of Ajmer an Indian Religious congregation of women who have dedicated their lives to God and the service of humanity. The mission Sisters of Ajmer founded in 1911 run Educational Institutions all over the country with the aim of giving Indian Girls an all-round training. In a congenial atmosphere of love and understanding students are provided opportunities to develop their tastes and talents—intellectual, austhotic, physical. The mission Sisters of Ajmer founded in 1911 run Educational Institutions all over the country with the aim of giving Indian Girls an all-round training. In a congenial atmosphere of love and understanding students are provided opportunities to develop their tastes and talents—intellectual, austhotic, physical. Sound Doral principles together with knowledge and skills are imparted to them. They are trained to acquire self-reliance and confidence to become unselfish, conscientious, loyal citizens of free India; to contribute their share to its development and progress, and well equipped to meet the challenges of fast changing society. The course of studies is based on the pattern prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. Students are prepared for the Higher Secondary Examination Arts and Science." So far as parents are concerned, it is stated, amongst others : "(iii) Your personal attention is to see that your daughter; does her studies regularly; completes the work assigned as Home work; is punctual for school; comes to school neatly dressed in the prescribed uniform; keeps books clean and her work upto-date; has no physical or psychological problem hindering her growth and development." There are norms of admissions and promotions. Rules of Discipline, inter-alia, provide— "2. Students are expected to take good care of their books. Text books and exercise books must be covered with brown paper and labelled with name, subject, class, distinctly written on the outer cover and on the inner page. Students should have their books in canvas or leather bags. 7. All correspondence is to be addressed to the Principal, in case of complaints meet the Principal directly. 18. School fees are to be paid regularly per as directives in the fee booklet. Only those students who clear all dues by March of the current year will be permitted to sit for the Final Examination. 19. Parents are kindly requested to acquaint themselves with the rules and regulations of the school and see that they and their wards abide by them." All this has to be kept in view for the purpose of deciding the question of jurisdiction. 13. Complainant has been defined in sec. 2(1)(b). A consumer can be a complainant. Complaint has been defined in sec. 2(l)(c). Sub. cl. 13. Complainant has been defined in sec. 2(1)(b). A consumer can be a complainant. Complaint has been defined in sec. 2(l)(c). Sub. cl. (i) and (iii) may usefully be referred, which read as under :— "(i) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complainant has suffered loss or damage; (iii) the service mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect." Consumer has been defined in sec. 2(l)(d). Material part of it is as under:— "(d) "consumer means any person who— (i) ... .... .... .... (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of i.e. first mentioned person." Consumer dispute has been defind in sec. 2(l)(e) of the Act. Sec. 2(l)(g) defines deficiency, which is as under :— "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service." Sec. 2(l)(o) defines service, which reads as under :— "(o) service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service." Sec. 14 deals with the finding of the District Forum and the relief that can be granted. We may reproduce sec. 14(1) in its entirety— "14. We may reproduce sec. 14(1) in its entirety— "14. (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things, namely :— (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charge paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. (2) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-sec. (1) shall be signed by all the members constituting it and, if there is any difference of opinion, the order of the majority of the members constituting it shall be the order of the District Forum; (3) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct of the meetings of the District Forum, its sittings and other matters shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government." The complainant does not satisfy the tests laid down in the definition of consumer under sec. 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act, for, he cannot be said to have hired the services of the educational institution for the purpose of imparting education to his daughter. Imparting of education cannot be equated with the hiring of service. 14. The second question in this connection is that by imparting education does the opposite-party render any service. The service is to be made available to potential user. It is admitted case that the opposite-party is not bound to admit any student. The admission is given in accordance with the Rules laid down by it. A close reading of the definition of service shows that it is an inclusive definition and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing etc. but does not include rendering of any service free of charge or under the contract of personal service. The admission is given in accordance with the Rules laid down by it. A close reading of the definition of service shows that it is an inclusive definition and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing etc. but does not include rendering of any service free of charge or under the contract of personal service. Illustrations given in the definition do not mention facility of education. Besides that, the realisation of excess amount as fee under the heads of electricity and water or realisation of such amount ought not be done, do not constitute deficiency within the meaning of sec. 2(l)(g) of the Act. The opposite party does not render service of supplying water and electricity to the students reading in the school. The question raised in this connection does not constitute consumer dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant invited our attention to sec. 6 of the Act, which deals with the objects of Central Council and one of the objects mentioned therein is the right to consumer education and on this basis, learned counsel argued that the complaint is maintainable under the Act. This is a fallacious argument. Consumer Education, which is one of the objects of the Central Council, is to make a consumer aware about his rights or to educate him in regard to the rights he possesses as a consumer. Here, the complainants daughter is reading in the school and that has got nothing to do with the consumer education. We may mention that the District Forum repelled the argument that the opposite-party is not a trader, for, it does not do any trade. The District Forum observed that there is no facility of personal service and the opposite-party is not imparting education without fees. This need not detain us, for, the opposite-party is not a trader as defined in Sec. 2(l)(q) of the Act. Principally, the definition of trader relates to the dealings in goods. We are of opinion that the complainant is not a consumer. The services rendered by the opposite-party is not "service" as defined in sec. 2 (l)(o) of the Act and that charging of the fees for water and electricity does not amount to deficiency in service, as envisaged by sec. 2(l)(m). We are of opinion that the complainant is not a consumer. The services rendered by the opposite-party is not "service" as defined in sec. 2 (l)(o) of the Act and that charging of the fees for water and electricity does not amount to deficiency in service, as envisaged by sec. 2(l)(m). We are constrained to hold that the District Forum could not entertain and try the matter relating to realisation of electricity and water fees from the students reading in Sophia Girls Hr. Secondary School. The complainant cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. Question no. 3 is also decided in favour of the opposite-party-appellant and against the complainant-respondent. The impugned order is, therefore, without jurisdiction. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The order dated 1-8-89 passed in Complaint Case No. 360/89 by the District Forum. Kota is set aside. The respondent shall pay Rs. 300/- as costs to the appellants. 16. Pronounced on September 29, 1989.