Date of Filing: 20/03/2019

Date of Judgement: 12/09/2023

Sri Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President

This is a complaint whereby an allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service was made against the Opposite Parties by the complainant and accordingly have been sought for relief in the form of refund of the amount with interest thereon and cost of litigation, compensation etc.  The fact leading to the complaint is that complainant having passed H.S. examination wanted to take admission in B.Sc. Nursing Course and on being attracted by the leaflets distributed by OP 1 visited their office in Kolkata.  OP Nos. 2 & 3 are the proprietors of OP No. 1 institution.  They collected all the original documents from the complainant and also advised her that she was eligible for B.Sc. Nursing Course and assured her that they would make all necessary arrangement in order to get her admitted to OP No. 4 institution i.e. Maj Foundation Dhanwantry School of Nursing at Bangalore having registered office at Vinayak Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka.  She was also informed by OP 1, 2 & 3 that the theory and practical classes would be held in Kolkata, but the written examination would be held at Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, an institution recognized by KNC,INC.  The complainant also paid Rs.1,20,000/- in total by making payment on different dates.  Thereafter, she started to attend classes on 9/11/2017.  The classes were very irregular and conducted by poor faculty and OP 2 & 3 never made any arrangement for practical classes and as per their instruction they collected all the academic original documents from the complainant.  She also paid Rs.3,000/- for expenses for travelling to Bangalore for examination.  But ultimately she was informed by OP 2 & 3 that she could not collect the hall ticket for examination and subsequently she was informed that she was not eligible for B.Sc. Nursing course as she could not secure minimum marks in Chemistry.  Subsequently, OP 2 & 3 wanted to get her admitted to OP 5.  However, the complainant could realize that she was misguided by OP 2 & 3 in order to squeeze money from her and she sought for return of all the original documents from OP 2 & 3 which were not complied with.  Hence, this complaint. 

OP 1, 2 & 3 though initially appeared but did not contest this case by filing written version, whereas OP 4 & 5 contested the case by filing a written version praying for rejection of the complaint against them as they claimed to have no knowledge about the developments happened to the complainant with OP 1, 2 & 3. 

Points for determination :

Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief in this case.

                                             FINDINGS

The complainant in order to substantiate her case besides filing evidence produced the documents namely – the leaflets issued for OP 1, the money receipts also issued in the name of OP 1 and notice issued through her Advocate addressed to OP 2 & 3.  On perusing the materials on record what we find is that it is the OP 2 & 3 who are said to be the proprietors of OP 1, had  assured the complainant that she was eligible for getting admitted to B.Sc. Nursing course and accordingly they collected money from the complainant on different dates for which payment receipts were issued by them.  But subsequently the complainant could not proceed with her course because in the mid way i.e. before examination, she was informed by OP 2 & 3 that she was not eligible and could not qualify for pursuing the said course.  It is highly astonishing how OP 2 & 3 who are running an institution of nursing in the name of OP No. 1 could initially assure students like the complainant about their eligibility even on going through the documents relating to their educational qualification but subsequently at the time of examination informed the said students about their ineligibility to pursue the course.  Therefore, this act on the part of OP 2 & 3 only reveals the lack of seriousness that is absolutely required for a person to run an educational institution for aspiring students.  This lackadaisical manner with which the complainant was treated only gives rise to a conclusion about an attitude of somehow squeezing money from the students that tantamount to unfair trade practices.  This sort of act on the part of OP 2 & 3 only goes to jeopardize the future career of the students.  So, OP No. 2 & 3 are solely responsible for the unfortunate state of the complainant. 

Therefore, complainant has legitimate grievances and she is entitled to refund of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of 29/5/2018 when the last payment of Rs.40,000/- in cash was made by her.  Apart from this, she is also entitled to a cost of litigation amount of Rs.5,000/- from OP 1, 2 & 3.

Be it noted here that this case is liable to be dismissed against OP No. 4 & 5 as no evidence is found to be there about their involvement in this case.

Accordingly, it is

                                       ORDERED

This complaint is allowed against OP No. 1, 2 and 3 exparte and dismissed against OP No. 4 & 5 on contest. 

That OP 1, 2 & 3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @9% per annum.  OP 1, 2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation cost amounting to Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. 

OP 1, 2 & 3 are directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed with the accordance of law.

Dictated and corrected by me

President