DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 49 OF _2017
DATE OF FILING : 24.4.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 25/07/2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Jayantanuj Mridha, son of Kishoreemohan Mridha of Vineeta Apartment, Flat no.V-6, 1st Floor, Ganguram Gali, 33, Jhowtala Road, P.O Hatiara, P.S New Town, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Pin-700 157.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. A.D Group of Institution, Senerpur Mission Pally, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150.
2. Swapan Kumar Mondal, Chairman ,son of Haripada Mondal, A.D Group of Institution, Village- Hiranmoypur (South Para), P.O Hiranmoypur (South Para), P.S Jharkhali Costal , Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743312.
3. Netai Chandra Gayen, Principal, A.D Group of Institution, son of late Kartik Chandra Gayen of Village-Ranigarh, P.O Ranigarh, P.S Basanti, South 24-Parganas, Pin- 743312.
4. Sm. Maloika Mondal, Director, A.D Group of Institution, Village-Ranigarh, P.O Ranigarh, P.S Basanti, South 24-Parganas, Pin- 743312.
5. Sm. Malabika Gayen, Director, Daughter of Netai Chandra Gayen, of AD Group of Institution, Village-Ranigarh, P.O Ranigarh, P.S Basanti, South 24-Parganas, Pin- 743312.
___________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
JHUNU PRASAD, LADY MEMBER
Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the complainant contending gross negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service towards the complainant by the Opposite Parties.
In epitome, the case stated in the complaint, is that, being impressed by the advertisement published and displayed in the billboard by the Opposite Party No.1 the complainant approached the office of the Opposite Parties at Sonarpur to obtain B.ED.course. The Opposite Party No. 1 supplied brochure and assured that the B.ED. Course is affiliated and recognized by the National Council of Teachers Education.
Accordingly on 20.11.2014 the complainant paid total course fee of Rs. 65,000/- only for the said B.ED. course which was assured to be started from Jan.2015. After receipt of the entire payment of Rs.65,000/- the Opposite Parties kept silent about the opening of the said B.ED. course.
Thereafter, the complainant several times visited the office of the Opposite Party to enquire the matter, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to open/start the said B.ED. course.
The complainant stated that the said institution is a fake one and just to grab the money in deceitful manner the Opposite Parties adopting such unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency and negligence in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
Therefore, the complainant filed this instant complaint to get relief as prayed for.
Issued notices upon the Opposite Parties.
After receipt the notices the Opposite Parties appeared and contested the case by way of filling written version, denying all the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the case is not maintainable and filed the case intentionally without any cause of action.
The specific case, as stated by the Opposite Parties, in terse, is that , the Opposite Party No. 2 had joined the said institution as a care taker for children to the nursery school since Jan’2014 and he had resigned from his job sometimes in March 2014 and the Opposite Party No.2 has no way attached or involved with the said AD Group other than the short term of employment.
Moreover the other Opposite Parties as named in the petition of complaint are his wife, father- in - law and sister – in-law who are the most ordinary village
people and no way connected or involved with the alleged institution of Opposite Party No. 1.
The Opposite Party No.2 was never attached to AD Group of institution other than the aforesaid nursery school.The Opposite Parties are also stated that the complainant did not file any proper documents to support of his contention made in the petition of complaint as all annexure i.e. money receipt, ID card do not reveal the connection to the Opposite Party No.2 as those documents do not bear any official signature.
The Opposite Party No. 2 also stated that as the statutory period of 2 years has been completed, the complainant case is hopelessly barred by limitation.
All allegations contained in the complaint petition made by the complainant are false frivolous, vexatious, mala fide and harrassive without any basis of facts and are denied by the Opposite Parties, therefore the instant complaint case be dismissed with cost.
POINTS FOR DECISION:-
1) Is the complainant a consumer or not?
2) Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for? Decision with Reasons:-
At the time of argument the complainant and the Opposite Parties have filed affidavit –in- chief, BNA, and some Xerox copies of documents to support of their claim.
All points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
In coming into the conclusion regarding the present dispute, we have carefully gone through the complaint filed by the complainant and written version filed by the Opposite Party and also critically appreciated the material documents on record and we have gathered that it is evident that the complainant Paid Rs.
65,000/- by two installments to the Opposite Parties for obtaining B.ED. Degree, but ridiculously after receipt the full payment of Rs. 65,000/- the Opposite Parties did not start the schedule course as committed by the Opposite Parties. The complainant in his complaint made specific plea regarding admission in B.ED course at the Opposite Party No 1’s institute and made payment of Rs. 65,000/- on two installment in support of such payment the complainant has filed two money receipt issued by Opposite No. 1 along with the same the complainant also filed booklet indicating the features of teaching program. The Opposite Party No. 2 to 5 by their written version denied the case of the complainant and submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 Swapan Mandal is a resident of south 24 Parganas under Basanti P.S. and during searching for his job in the year of 2013 joined the institution as a caretaker at a remuneration of Rs.1,500/- per month. The Opposite Party No. 2 also submits that he was no way attached and/or involved with said AD Group other than for short term of employment.
The Opposite No. 2 further submits that since March 2014 he had no connection or relation with AD Group of institution. The rest answering Opposite Parties submits that they have family relation with the Opposite Party No.2 and are residing under Basanti P.S. District- South 24 Parganas, had no relation with the Opposite Party no. 1.The Opposite Parties disputed the payment made by the complainant.
Manifestly, from the above averments of the Opposite Parties it is also reveals that the Opposite Party no.2 did not represent his case with documentary evidence to show about his joining in the institution as care taker, to show about consolidate remuneration of Rs.1,500/- per month and left the job in March 2014. The Opposite Party no. 2 though stated about run of an educational centre by some ‘gentle man with few other persons’, but did not disclose the name and particulars of the said gentleman and other persons. If he joined as care taker he ought to have knowledge about name and particulars of his employer.
Therefore, from such averment it is evident that the Opposite Party No. 2 tried to mislead the Ld. Forum from this case.
From the above averment it is also evident, that the Opposite Party No.2 did not challenge the authenticity and or genuinity of the documents annexed with the complaint.
Therefore, we found much substance in the complainant’s case. But we did not find any relation between the Opposite Party No.3 to 5 more particularly the complainant failed to establish any relation and nexus between Opposite Party No. 3 to 5 with the Opposite Party No.1.
So, commonly the Forum inclined to hold that the Opposite Party No.3 to 5 has been impleaded unnecessary and accordingly the Opposite Party No. 3 to 5 have been discharged from the complaint case.
As the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to provide proper service to the complainant upon receipt of consideration , the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have been found guilty under deficiency in service within the per view of section 2(i)(g) of C.P. Act 1986.and liable to refund of Rs. 65,000/- along with interest.
Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the complainant has successfully proved his case and entitled to get reliefs from the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.
In short, the complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 with cost of Rs.5,000/-
That the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 are directed to refund the money of Rs.65,000/- with simple interest @12%p.a. effective from the date of last payment till realisation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
That the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Besides, the complainant shall be at liberty to take recourse of execution of this order u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986.
Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member President
Dictated and Corrected by me
Member
