DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __39_ _ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING :_28.3.2018         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  31.7.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :             Rupak Mandal,  Vill.+P.O+P.S  Gosaba, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743370.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : 1. NIMTT , Vinayak Pride, 470, Dakshin Kumra Khali Road, Kamal Gazi, Kolkata – 103.

                                    2.    Biswajit Ghorai, Pinku Nibas, A37/5, South Cannel Road, Rajapur, Kolkata – 75.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

                The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

                The complainant got himself admitted to B.Ed Course of one year in NIMTT Institute (O.P-1) on 10.7.2014. Rs.66,250/- was paid by him to O.P-1 on different dates. He appeared in the examination held on 14.12.2015 in Swami Vivekananda University in Madhya Pradesh. But no degree ,nor any diploma was given to him by the O.P-1. O.P-2 is the director of O.P-1 and he assured the complainant to refund all the amounts received by his Institute. A cheque was also sent to the complainant on 23.2.2018 to refund the money. But the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of fund in the account of O.P-1. So, the complainant has filed the instant complaint ,praying for refund of the money paid by him to O.P-1 and also for compensation. Hence, arises the instant case.

                The O.Ps entered into appearance in this case and also filed written version of their statement to contest herein. But thereafter, they did not turn up and did not file any evidence and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against them.

               In the written version of their statement, it has been pleaded that the complainant took admission in B.Ed course in the Institute (O.P-1) and they received payment or Rs.48,750/- only out of total course fee of Rs.66,250/-. O.P-1 is the consulting agency and it guides the students up to the stage of appearance in examination in any university. Refund is not made if the candidate takes seat for the final examination. In the instant case, complainant appeared in the final examination; he did not produce his migration certificate and, therefore, admit card was not issued in his favour. As the complainant appeared in the final examination of B.Ed course, he is not entitled to get any refund of his money from the O.P-1. The O.Ps have no liability to refund the money to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. As such, the complaint deserves to be dismissed in limini.                              

                Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1.  Are the O.ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

                   The complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant vide his petition dated 11.6.2018. No evidence whatsoever has been led on behalf of the O.Ps.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2 :

                  It is the version of the O.Ps that O.P-1 renders service as a Consulting Agent, that it makes arrangement for admission of students to different Universities for B.Ed examination. It is admitted by the O.Ps in the written version of their statement that they received admission fee , course fee, examination fee etc. from the complainant. Also admitted is the fact that the Admit Card was not issued to the complainant for appearing in B.Ed examination. The Admit Card was not issued, because the complainant did not produce his Migration Certificate.

                Now to see , upon the admitted facts as referred to above, whether there has been any deficiency in service caused on the part of the O.Ps. It is the first duty of the O.Ps to take Migration Certificate from the complainant and then to provide him admit card and registration certificate before sending him to appear in the examination.

                In the instant case,  it is undisputed fact that the Migration Certificate was not produced by the complainant and, therefore, the O.Ps could not issue any admit card in favour of the complainant. If the admit cared is not issued in favour of the complainant, why was he sent to Madhya Pradesh to appear in B.Ed examination? Is it not deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps? It is absolutely a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, because the O.Ps knew it very well that complainant will face trouble in the matter of appearing in the examination in Madhya Pradesh for want of admit card. Failure to provide Registration Certificate and Admit Card to the complainant is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, because it is inadequacy in the performance of services rendered by the O.Ps towards the complainant.

                It has been pointed out in the written version of statement filed by the O.Ps that they are not liable to refund the money received from the complainant ,because they bear the responsibility only up to the stage of appearance  of the candidate in the examination. The complainant appeared in the examination and, therefore, all their liabilities which they owned to the complainant have been exhausted. If this be so, the question arises why did the O.Ps send a cheque for Rs.9000/- to the candidate? Issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant demonstrates that they are still liable to refund the amount to the complainant. The cheque was bounced as there was no sufficient fund in the account of O.P-1 . Issue of cheque of a person without having sufficient fund in the account is undoubtedly  another deficiency in service and the O.Ps have been guilty of such kind of deficiency in service. Mere sitting for an examination is not appearance in examination, unless the lawful formalities of such appearance are fulfilled. In the instant case, complainant’s appearance in examination cannot be termed as actual appearance of him  in the examination and ,therefore, O.Ps’ liability to refund the money, which is admittedly exhausted if the candidate appears in the examination, still continues.   The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for and relief is accorded to him accordingly as hereunder.

              In the result, the case succeeds.

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

             The O.ps are directed to refund Rs.48,750/- jointly and severally to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony sustained by the complainant due to their deficiency in service, within a month of this order, failing which ,the refund amount , the amounts of cost and compensation will bear interest @8% p.a till full realization thereof.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                       President

I / We agree

                              Member                                            Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                                                  President