West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/93/2016

1. Anirban Samanta, C/O Arjun Kumar Samanta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Matiur Rahaman Laskar, C/O Abdur Rahaman Laskar. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _93_ OF ___2016__

 

DATE OF FILING : 26.8.2016                       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 10.03.2017

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Sharmi Basu & Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT              : Anirban Samanta, C/o Arjun Kumar Samanta of Vill. Dakshin Battala, P.O Masjidbati, P.S. Basanti, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743312.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. Matiur Rahaman Laskar,C/o Abdur Rahaman Laskar of Vill.& P.O & P.S Basanti, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743312.

                                              2.    AIHE (Ambition Institute of Higher Education), G. Bose Sarani, Baruipur, Railgate, Kolkata – 144.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President          

The short case of the complainant is that she was admitted at B-Ed of session 2014-15 through the study center of O.P-2 under the Proprietorship of O.P-1 and paid the requisite full amount . She was informed that her admission  was made to Omega College of Education under the Acharya Nagarjuna University  in Andhra Pradesh and also gave her a confirmation letter and collected all original mark sheets and certificates and photocopies thereof for verification. It has alleged that complainant went to the Andhra Pradesh for final exam  and it has utter surprise to the complainant that O.P did not arrange for admission anywhere at all ,for which she returned back with the high disappointment which is nothing but an harassment . Accordingly she prays for refund of Rs.30,000/-, compensation to the tune of Rs.1.8 lakh and litigation cost etc.

 

On 9.11.2016 O.P appeared and prayed for time for filing written version and prayer was allowed fixing 29.11.2016 for filing write version by the O.Ps.  But on that date O.Ps did not appear. Again another date was fixed on 7.12.2016 along with cost of Rs.500/-. But inspite of appearance of the complainant in persons none appears on behalf of the O.P thereafter and no step was also taken in the first half and thereafter one Ld. Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the O.P and files a petition for time for filing written version. The prayer was considered fixing 19.12.2016 for filing written version. On 19.12.2016 O.Ps as usual was absent for which we are compelled to proceed the case against the O.Ps in exparte.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

 

At the very outset it must be stated that the O.Ps were appeared through vakalatnama and prays for time for filing written version and thereafter fled away . Even after imposing cost they did not bother the same for which considering the urgency  in the matter because the dispute of the student is touching their educational carrier for which case is running in exparte against the O.Ps since O.Ps cleverly fled away after appearance after filing vakalatnama . This is the sorry state of affairs by which the case is taken up for passing order.

Needless to say that from the series of money receipts it has come to our knowledge that  O.P-2 , Proprietor of O.P-1 accepted money from time to time from the complainant and one study certificate was issued in the letter head of Omega College of Education, Pamura , Andhra Pradesh to that effect that the complainant is a student of B-Ed course at Omega College of Education for the batch no.2014-15 and students are bound to present 80% of the classes as per norms.

It appears that complainant informed the matter to the Officer-In-Charge of Basanti P.S regarding unfairness income with the B-Ed admission of the complainant. So,  the totality of the circumstances clearly suggests that in view of the reported decision reported in 2015 (1) CPR page 611 NC that fictitious Educational Institutions must be dealt with iron hand.

Herein, we find that O.Ps being a fictitious Educational Institution collected money with the help to give education to the student at large and herein the same thing has happened when a fictitious certificate of Omega College of Education , Andhra Pradesh was handed over to the complainant and thereby got confident of the innocent students like this complainant . But when the complainant went there for appearing final exam came to know that he was not admitted anywhere . In this sorry state of affairs all Courts of Law should give protection to this type of complainant/student taking into consideration of their own son and daughter, otherwise society at large will be affected by the hands of this type of unfair institutions, that is why, Hon’ble National Commission sparked by holding “Fictitious Educational Institution  must be dealt with iron hand”.

The Hon’ble National  Commission also observed in another reported case 2013(3) CPR 48 that Consumer Forum must protect gullible students. Here, we find that it is a clear misleading to the students/complainants after collecting the fees etc. from him for facilitating admission in such course. But Hon’ble National Commission  has categorically mentioned that in this type of cases O.Ps’ intention was to meant money, as a result of which complainants’’ carrier was spoiled by the act of the O.Ps. So, the act of the O.Ps proved misleading information and it was not only deficient in rendering services but also indulge into unfair trade practice.  So, in this backdrop both the O.Ps are jointly and/or severally held liable to refund the fee deposited by the complainant along with compensation and we hold that even passing a very good amount of compensation, the years which were lost in the life of the student cannot be compensated by adequate monetary value. But some amount of compensation must be given for the consolation of the complainant/student.

So, on the basis of the view of the Hon’ble National Commission we hold and observed that O.Ps have definitely tried to meant money by leading the gullible people of the garden path and hold the O.P responsible for huge deficiency in service  which has resulted in playing with the carrier of the young students herein the complainant. It should be mentioned here that the judgement of the District Forum and Hon’ble State Commission were upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission and while dismissing the appeal this was the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission. Thus we find that another remarkable judgment should be relied on at this juncture ,wherein one revision petition was filed against the order dated 14.8.2009 in appeal no.688 of 2007 of the Hon’ble State Commission, Orissa, wherein the order of the District Forum was set aside by the Hon’ble National Commission of Orissa on a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Institution and the petitioner had left study in the midst of her own volition. The Hon’ble National Commission has observed in para 9 of the said Judgment that  “Support is lent  to this view by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Buddist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs. …….. wherein it was held that admitting students to the four years degree course for BDS by an Institution, it was neighed affiliated by the University nor recommended by the Dental Council of India, for imparting education on misrepresentation about the affiliation not only tantamount to unfair trade practice but it clearly falls within the purview of deficiency as defined in the Act. The ratio of the said decision is on all force to the facts in hand. The Hon’ble National Commission thereafter observed in para 10 that for the aforegoing reasons the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored, we direct that in case the amount awarded by the District Forum have not yet been paid by the respondent to the complainant, the same shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Thus we find here that the circumstances is clearly identical because when the complainant went to the Andhra Pradesh for appearing in the final exam she came to know that she was not admitted any where. So, that is a misleading to the student. Thus, we find in all pros and cons of this case, as per noble decision as quoted by us which was passed by the Hon’ble National Commission from time to time to check this type of fictitious institutions and to give protection to the student at large we are in the same view that O.Ps are in deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted and they wanted to spoil the carrier of the student which cannot be considered by any court of Law and the procedure of the Consumer Forum is a judicial proceedings in view of section 13(5) of the C.P Act, 1986 .

With that observation it is,

                                                                                    Ordered

The application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed in exparte against the O.P.

The O.Ps are hereby directed jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.30,000/-  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order along with interest @9% p.a from the date of this order till its realization.

The O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

Let  a plain copy of this order  be handed over to the complainant free of cost and a copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.

 

 

Member                                               Member                                                           President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        President

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

                                                            Ordered

The application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed in exparte against the O.P.

The O.Ps are hereby directed jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.30,000/-  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order along with interest @9% p.a from the date of this order till its realization.

The O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

Let  a plain copy of this order  be handed over to the complainant free of cost and a copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.

 

 

Member                                               Member                                                           President