In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad

Case No. C.C./31/2015

Date of filing: 25/02/2015                                                                  Date of Final Order: 16/12/2015

Jaleswar Choudhury

S/O-Lt. Mohitendra Nath Choudhury.

Vill. Amtala, P.O.- Amtala. P.S.- Nowda.

Dist- Murshidabad,PIN-742121 ………………………………………………...Complainant

                -Vs-

Prop. “Oasis Educational Centre”, Abdul Rahim (Mayuri Book Stall)

Amtala College Road, Dist.- Murshidabad.

Vill. Amtala, P.O.- Amtala. P.S.- Nowda

 Dist.- Murshidabad (WB) PIN-742121.…………….………………….   Opposite Party

Present:                        Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                        Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                        Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.

            Brief facts of the case are that Complainant / Petitioner got admission in the Sr. Secondary course of National Institute of Open Schooling before the Opposite party. The OP took Rs.15000/- during the time of admission. As the complainant did not sit for the first examination so the OP took necessary measure for the second examination at the fees paid for first time. He further came to know from the website of the Institute www online.nios.ac.in that the course fee is Rs.6280/- or less instead of Rs.15000/-. So the complainant prayed to return Rs.8000/- along with interest and compensation for mental pain and agony and litigation cost before this Forum by filing complaint petition.

          He filed the Xerox copy of bill dated 28.02.2013 of the Oasis Educational Centre and downloaded copy of Notification of NIOS that contains the fee structure of different courses.

         The complainant in his evidence on affidavit assailed that the OP took a sum of Rs.15000/- which is more than the fee structure of the educational institute in which he did his qualification. So he is entitled to get a sum, of Rs.8500/-.         

         From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR CONSIDERATION

2).    Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).  Whether the O.P. carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service                    towards the Complainant?

4).  Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

5).    Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) as prayed for?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

                    In the light of discussions herein above we find that the following issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

1. Jaleswar Choudhury is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?                                                               From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of OP is entitled to get service from the OPs.

 (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad and cause of action took place at Amtala, Murshidabad. The complaint valued at Rs.11000.00/- and Rs.3,000/as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation cost ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

              After perusing the Complaint Petition, Evidence on Affidavit and also the documents as filed by the complainant and hearing the argument as advanced by the complainant it appears that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.15000/-as course fee to the OP for the course H.S.(Science) from NIOS in the session October, 2013. After elapsing first attempt the complainant completed his course at the intervention of OP from the NIOS. The dispute cropped up when the complainant came to know that the course fee is Rs.6280/- or less instead of Rs.15000/- which he paid to the OP. The complainant put the matter to the OP for getting refund the balance amount i.e. difference between RS.15000/- and Rs.6280/- but the OP did not pay heed at the utterance of the complainant. Getting no alternative the complainant preferred the redressal of this Forum for getting such excess money which the OP collected during the period of admission and litigation cost and compensation for mental pain. The OP being the proprietor of Oasis Educational Service made necessary measure to admit and arrangement for sitting in the examination before the institution so his responsibility regarding the admission is unquestionable. Now the matter regarding the collection of fees by the OP is to be taken into consideration while adjudicating the dispute that cropped up in between the parties. The OP should appear before this Forum to make his version regarding the collection of fees whether it includes his fees for setting the candidate in motion or not. The complaint filed by the complainant is unchallenged and heard in ex-parte. So the averments of the complaint petition and the verbal argument have taken into consideration while come into decision. It appears from the documents that the OP is not the agent of the Institution in which the complainant admitted for getting degree so he is not paid by the institution. But the OP collected his fees under the head of course fee keeping the complainant in dark.  

      So from the above the discussion we can come into this conclusion that the complainant being an unemployed youth compelled to pay extra money to the OP for getting his degree. And the OP collected a sum of Rs.15000/- in the head of course fee, which is unjust and unfair trade practice. The complainant suffered at the unfair trade practice of the OP for which he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.4000/- as refund and other reliefs as this Forum deemed fit and proper.

4.  Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant is able to prove his case. So, the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the Complainant as we deem fit and proper.

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?

As it is already proved in the discussion at point No. 3, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party cannot be ousted and as such the Complainant is entitled to get relief(s).

       Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party in part with a litigation cost of Rs.2000/-.

       The Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000.00 to this complainant within 45 days from the receipt of this final order. No other relief (s) is awarded to the complainant.

        In default a fine @Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

       Let plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest in person, by hand under proper acknowledgement/ be sent forthwith under registered post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

Dictated and corrected by me.  

                  Member,                                         Member,                                     President,

   District Consumer Disputes          District Consumer Disputes            District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.  Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.   Redressal Forum, Murshidabad