Moot problem

Sure Sort CLAT coaching institute is a commercial coaching institute, having head office in Ranchi, they prepare students for CLAT entrance examination. This institute came into existence in the year 2014 and since last two years it has 70 percent success rate. They claim in their advertisement that they guarantee sure sory success in CLAT Entrance examination to all students. Rahul took admission in the coaching institute and attended all their classes and test. his rank was akways within top ten students in the mock test conducted by the Institute at all India level. Still when he wrote real CLAT entrance examination his rank was low and because of this he didn't get offer of admission in from law school. Aggrieved by the failure to get admission in any college he sued the Coaching Institute under Consumer Protection Act 1986 before the appropriate forum in Ranchi arguing that his failure to secure admission in any law school despite attending the Institute amounts to deficiency in service. The Coaching Institute opposed the claim of Rahul arguing that his case doesn't fall within the scope of service under Consumer Protection Act. The matter is listed for final hearing. what are point of argument from plantiff side?