Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Smt. Tulika Sardar W/o. Chandrakanta Naskar of Village – Beliadanga, P.O. – Dakshin Barasat, Dist. – 24 Parganas (South), Pin – 743 372, Joynagar against A D Group of Institution, Sonarpur and Shri Swapan Mondal with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to refund the amount paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.69,000/-, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment, caused to him. The complainant prays for exemplary punishment of the OP No.2.
OP No-1 is A D Group of Institution. The address is Sonarpur, Mission Pally, P.S. – Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 150.
OP No.2 is Sri Swapan Kumar Mondal. He is the Chairman of A D Group of Institution. The address is C/o. Haripada Mondal, Village – Hiranmoypur, P.S. – Jharkhali Coastal, Dist. – South 24 Pgs, Pin – 743 312.
The complainant by filing this case states that going through the advertisement, appeared in ‘Bartaman’ and ‘Karmasangsthan’, the complainant went to A D Group of Institution, Mission Pally.
The complainant saw that the classes were going on under different subjects. The office was very attractive and nice. The name of the Director of the said Institution is Swapan Mondal. He informed that the students aspiring for B.Ed. Course would be awarded the B.Ed. Degree from Andhra Pradesh. He also informed that the B.Ed. Training may be imparted from any of the Universities of Bihar. At last the course was imparted from Andhra Pradesh. As per agreement, the complainant paid Rs.69,000/-.
After many days the complainant wanted to know if the registration was done. The complainant was informed that his registration was complete. It was also displayed in the complainant’s computer screen. At last complainant came to know that it was totally false. The complainant lodged an FIR to the concerned P.S. OP No.2 grabbed money by befooling the complainant. The complainant also went to Hyderabad for appearing at the B.Ed. Examination. But everything was false. OP No.2 was grabbing money from the innocent student. The valuable year of the complainant’s academic career was lost. The activity of the OP is the cause of the complainant’s harassment and mental agony.
The cause of action starts on and from 28.11.2014 when the complainant started for payment and it is still continuing.
The complainant prays for a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.69,000/-, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and to pay litigation cost and any other relief.
The OP No.2 in his written version states that this case is not maintainable in its present form, and in the terms of law of limitation. The present complaint is barred by the Principles of Estoppels, Waiver and Limitation and is therefore liable to be dismissed. The petition is hopelessly barred by the Principles of Limitation. The complainant sought admission for the year 2014-15 and the complaint was lodged in 2019. The OP No.2 is in no way connected with the address mentioned in the complaint petition. The complaint petition is frivolous, vexatious the petition was filed for making unlawful profit.
That there is no cause of action in the petition of complaint. The allegation does not lie against OP No.2. OP no.2 did not take money from the complainant.
That the entire complaint case is based on assumption and presumption. The complainant made a false allegation of threat against OP No.2.
There is no contract and / or agreement of any nature as ever been between the parties.
OP No.2 states that the present petition of complaint is not at all maintainable in its present form and in the term of law. No notice was served upon OP No.2. That the complainant failed to prove the connection between Op No.2 and A D Group of Institutions.
That the complaint petition is frivolous and vexatious.
The complainant showed bona fide certificate of Sri Sainath College and St. Andrews College, but these two colleges are not made party in the complaint petition. So the complaint petition is bad in law.
Hence, the OP No.2 prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
The complaint was filed on 21.08.2019. That the complaint was admitted on 09.09.2019. On 20.10.2019 complainant files track report which shows that the notice was served upon the OPs satisfactorily. OP No.2 files W/V. Copy served. On 22.11.2019, Ld. Lawyers of the OPs files a petition challenging the maintainability of the case. On 11.03.2020 it was contented that the smooth running of the case was disturbed by the application of non-maintainability. The cause of action is continuing. Hence, the petition is rejected. On 12.04.2022 BNA has been filed by OP No.2. Argument of OP No.2 was also heard. On 21.12.2022, argument of OP No.2 was heard again. On 17.06.2023 argument of the complainant was heard. Accordingly we proceeded for giving judgement.
Points for consideration :-
- Is the complainant, a consumer?
- Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
Point No.1 & 2 :-
Both the points are taken up to together for the convenience of discussion as they are interlinked.
On perusal of records and documents it appears that the complainant was admitted to 1-year B.Ed. Course in the year 2015. The complainant went to A D Group of Institution, Mission Pally, Sonarpur. The complainant saw that the classes on different subjects were going on. The complainant was told that he would be awarded the B.Ed. Degree from one of the Universities of Andhra Pradesh. Afterwards, the complainant was informed that the B.Ed. Degree would be imparted from Bihar. The name of the Director of the A D Group of Institution is Swapan Mondal. As last the Director informed that the course would be imparted from any of the Universities of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant paid Rs.69,000/- as course fee. Now the question is whether the complainant is a “Consumer” according to C P Act 2019. The complainant was admitted to A D Group of Institution for getting the B.Ed. Degree. As the education is not a commodity and the educational institutions are not service providers, no question of deficiency in service arises. Such matters are not maintainable in the Consumer Commission. The Consumer Commission is not entitled to entertain such cases under Consumer Protection Act.
Let us go through the following citations to come to a definite conclusion –
- Pijush Kanti Mondal and Anr. Vs the Principal, Meghnad Saha Institute of Technology and Anr. in complaint case No:CC/10/2018 decided on 08.05.2019 by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Baruipur, South 24 Pgs.
- Guru Gobind Singh College of Education Vs. Ranveer Singh (First Appeal No:669 of 2012) decision on 13.01.2014. Vikram Biswas and Anr. Vs. the Principal, Netaji Subhas Engineering College and Anr. Case No:206/2019 decided on 07.07.2022. Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Baruipur, South 24 Pgs.
- Santosh Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs. Skylark Aviation Training School. Case No:CC/495/2014 decided on 29.07.2022 by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Baruipur, South 24 Pgs.
- Jaspreet Singh Vs. FIITJEE Ltd. First Appeal No.21 of 2015, date of decision 02.02.2015.
- Saunak Banik and Anr. Vs. Bandhan School of Development and Management (BSDM) and Anr. In complaint Case No:CC/65/2021 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Baruipur, South 24 Pgs.
- After perusal of all the citations referred above, it is clear that the complainant being a student does not fall within the definition of consumer. Nor the OPs being an Educational Institutions are service providers. Education is not a commodity. So the complaint is not maintainable. The Educational Institutions are not providing any service, so the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is wholly without jurisdiction to entertain such complaints. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University (Supra) has held that the respondent as a student is neither a consumer nor university is rendering any service to the students. Therefore, the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint.
In view of the argument advanced by the Authorized Representative of complainant, and the complainant himself and discussions made herein above, we are of the opinion that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint.
Point No:3 :
It appears that Points 1 & 2 have been decided in favour of the OP and there is no necessity to enter into the merit of the case. The Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such cases. As the deficiency in service of the OP cannot be decided by the Commission, we have no reason to hold that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the instant complaint case be and the same is dismissed with contest as not maintainable.
We pass no order as to cost.
That the final order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sangita Paul
Member
