JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 02.12.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.99/2017 titled Ayasha Kapoor v. The Vice Chancellor Sri Sai University Palampur & Ors. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant took admission in MCA for the session 2016-18 and paid Rs. 35450/- (Thirty five thousand four hundred fifty) vide receipt No.18907 dated 16.07.2016 to opposite parties as admission fees. It is pleaded that before start of academic session vide letter dated 01.08.2016 complainant intimated to opposite party No.3 that complainant got admission in Post Graduate Degree College Dharamshala and she requested for refund of admission fees. It is further pleaded that opposite parties did not refund the admission fees and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 35450/-(Thirty five thousand four hundred fifty). In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) for mental agony, harassment and financial hardship. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that present consumer complaint could not be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and it is further pleaded that complainant does not fall within the definition of service as defined under section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reaffirmed the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 5. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered that opposite parties would jointly and severally refund Rs. 35450/- (Thirty five thousand four hundred fifty) minus Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite parties would pay amount of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) as compensation for mental harassment to the complainant. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite parties would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) to the complainant. 6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum opposite parties filed present appeal before State Commission. 5000/- (Five thousand) as compensation for mental harassment to the complainant. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite parties would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) to the complainant. 6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum opposite parties filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 9. Complainant filed affidavit Ex.CW-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent took admission in MCA for the session 2016-18 and paid Rs. 35450/- (Thirty five thousand four hundred fifty) vide receipt No.18907 dated 16.07.2016 to opposite parties as admission fees. There is further recital in affidavit that before start of academic session vide letter dated 01.08.2016 deponent intimated to opposite party No.3 that deponent got admission in Post Graduate Degree College Dharamshala and deponent requested for refund of admission fees. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties did not refund admission fees and committed deficiency in service. State Commission has perused all the annexures filed by complainant carefully. 10. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Inder Pal Singh Registrar of Sri Sai University Palampur Ex.OPW-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant took admission in MCA for the session 2016-18 and paid Rs. 35450/-(Thirty five thousand four hundred fifty) including Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as refundable security. There is further recital in affidavit that as per ruling given by Hon''ble Apex Court of India Education is not commodity, Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service and matter could not be entertained by Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by opposite parties carefully. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants/opposite parties that District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint in view of ruling cited in grounds of appeal and on this ground appeal filed by the appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by opposite parties carefully. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants/opposite parties that District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of consumer complaint in view of ruling cited in grounds of appeal and on this ground appeal filed by the appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. It was held by three Members bench of H.P. State Consumer Commission reported in 1993 (3) CPJ 1547 titled Director Himachal Institute of Engineering & Technology vs. Anil Kumar Gupta that service as defined under section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 means service of any description which is made available to potential users. It was held by Full Bench of H.P. State Consumer Commission that Education is provided for a consideration and there exists a quid pro quo for education consideration amount. See 1992 (1) CPJ 76 SCDRC Haryana titled Tilak Raj vs. Haryana School Education Board. See 2012 (1) CPJ 194 NC titled Fiit Jee Ltd. vs. Dr. Minathi Rath. See 2010 (III) CPJ 310 NC titled Andhra University & Anr. vs. Janjanam Jagedeesh wherein it was held that student is entitled for refund of all fees if student had withdrawn from course without attending any class. Also See 2009 (1) CPJ 3 NC Nipun Nagar vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business. See 2009 (2) CPJ 314 NC titled Comed K. vs. T. Nagamani . See R.P. No.2323 of 2008 NC, R.P. No.2324 of 2008 NC and R.P. No.2325 of 2008 NC. Also See 2009 (1) CPJ 3 NC Nipun Nagar vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business. See 2009 (2) CPJ 314 NC titled Comed K. vs. T. Nagamani . See R.P. No.2323 of 2008 NC, R.P. No.2324 of 2008 NC and R.P. No.2325 of 2008 NC. In Revision Petitions No.2323 of 2008, 2324 of 2008 and 2325 of 2008 different opinions were given by Learned Division Bench of Hon''ble National Commission and thereafter matter was referred to third bench of Hon''ble National Consumer Commission after framing three points i.e. (1) Whether a student admitted in a Government Medical College under NRI quota could be denied refund of the fees on leaving the college keeping in view the fact that the seat vacated by him had been filled by another student from whom full amount of fees was charged again (2) Whether said Medical College was required to follow the guidelines/instructions issued by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) vide their circular dated 23.04.2007 and reiterated vide other circular dated 26.02.2011 and again vide other letter dated 25.04.2013 according to which fees was to be refunded after deducting a token amount (3) Whether orders already passed by National Consumer Commission in R.P. No.1336 of 2008 decided on 07.11.2008, R.P. No. 347 of 2012 decided on 25.05.2012 and R.P. No. 3926 of 2009 decided on 06.07.2012 in which the refund of fees was allowed based on UGC guidelines are to be followed to not. 12. Referral Bench has passed order on dated 24.07.2015 in revision petitions No. 2323 of 2008, 2324 of 2008 and 2325 of 2008 and held that guidelines issued by UGC from time to time are operative on the educational institutions. It was held that University could not take shelter of prospectus that fees was not refundable. It was held that circulars issued by UGC on dated 23.04.2007, 26.02.2011 and 25.04.2013 according to which admission fees was to be refunded after deducting token consideration amount of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) are operative upon Government Universities and Private Universities registered under UGC. 13. Referral bench of Hon''ble National Consumer Commission has given ruling to the effect that refusal of refund of admission fees would amount to deficiency in service. 14. Complainant has sought withdrawal of admission fees prior to the starting of academic session for the year 2016-17 of MCA. 13. Referral bench of Hon''ble National Consumer Commission has given ruling to the effect that refusal of refund of admission fees would amount to deficiency in service. 14. Complainant has sought withdrawal of admission fees prior to the starting of academic session for the year 2016-17 of MCA. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that opposite parties did not fill the vacant seat of complainant during the session 2016-17. It is well settled law that rulings given by Hon''ble National Consumer Commission are binding upon all State Commissions and District Forums in the country. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that ruling given by Hon''ble National Consumer Commission by way of majority in R.P. No.2323 of 2008, R.P. No.2324 of 2008 and R.P. No.2325 of 2008 has been set aside by the Hon''ble Apex Court of India as of today. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants/opposite parties that learned District Forum has granted excessive costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant for mental agony and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is a student and it is well settled law that students are wealth of Nation and State Commission is also of the opinion that learned District Forum has granted reasonable compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the compensation order of learned District Forum. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants/opposite parties that learned District Forum has granted excessive ligation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) to the complainant and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the ligation costs order of learned District Forum because complainant has engaged Advocate before learned District Forum and has paid Advocate fees and it is held that litigation costs order of learned District Forum is reasonable order. 17. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum in view of ruling of Hon''ble National Consumer Commission announced in R.P. Nos. 2323 of 2008, 2324 of 2008 and 2325 of 2008 cited supra. It is well settled law that concept of "RATIO DECIDENDI" is operative only when matter was directly and substantially in issue in former matter. As per section 1(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 Consumer Protection Act 1986 shall apply to all goods and services unless expressly prohibited by Central Government by way of notification. Central Government has not issued any notification as of today prohibiting jurisdiction of Consumer Fora relating to refund of admission fee prior to commencement of study session. As per law goods purchased for consideration and services rendered for consideration are entirely two different concepts under Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per law there are two types of rulings (1) Rulings in personam (2) Rulings in rem. As per section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 only rulings announced under (1) Probate matters (2) Matrimonial matters (3) Admiralty matters (4) Insolvency matter falls within definition of rulings in rem. As per section 42 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 other rulings falls within definition of rulings in personam. It is held that section 1(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 was not directly and substantially in issue in rulings cited by appellants in memorandum of grounds of appeal. It is held that Consumer Protection Act 1986 is beneficial special Act passed by Parliament of India for the protection of consumers. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Admission fee receipt issued by opposite parties for the session 2016-17 dated 16.07.2016 to the tune of Rs. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Admission fee receipt issued by opposite parties for the session 2016-17 dated 16.07.2016 to the tune of Rs. 35450/- (Thirty five thousand four hundred fifty) Annexure C-1 and letter issued by complainant to Dean Sri Sai University Palampur H.P. dated 01.08.2016 Annexure C-3 shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.