West Bengal

Rajarhat

CC/26/2019

Abhishek Banerjee S/o Bibhas Banerjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bengal Institute of Dialysis Studies - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Tarunjyoti Banerjee

08 Mar 2022

ORDER

Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town )
Kreta Suraksha Bhavan,Rajarhat(New Town),2nd Floor
Premises No. 38-0775, Plot No. AA-IID-31-3, New Town,P.S.-Eco Park,Kolkata - 700161
 
Complaint Case No. CC/26/2019
( Date of Filing : 10 Jul 2019 )
 
1. Abhishek Banerjee S/o Bibhas Banerjee
J.P Apartment, 3rd Floor, Nabapally Circular Road, Choto Bazar, P.O-Nabapally, P.s- Barasat, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700126.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Bengal Institute of Dialysis Studies
Office at AC-90/1, Prafulla Kanan, Kestopur,(Next to Bank Of Baroda), P.S-Baguiati, Kolkata-700101.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Silpi Majumder MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 08 Mar 2022
Final Order / Judgement
  1. This is a case u/S 12 read with Section 13 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act which was filed by one Abhishek Banerjee (Complainant) on 10.07.2019 against Bengal Institute of Dialysis Studies (Opposite Party).
  2. It is the case of the complainant that for taking Diploma Course for Dialysis Technology the complainant took admission into the OP’s institution by making payment of Rs. 50,500/- in 2018 and two receipts being Nos. 204 dated 22.08.2018 and 415 dated 03.11.2018 were granted by the OP in favour of the complainant. But consequently it could be ascertained by him that the institute was suffering from infrastructural deficiency and that he will have to go beyond the State of West Bengal for practical training. But before admission it was not intimated to the students that such a training beyond the State of West Bengal would be required at all.
  3. After such discovery of new and peculiar fact the complainant requested the OP to refund Rs. 50,500/- and the OP which agreed initially to do so started to take adjournments on different pleas. Legal notice which was sent on 01.06.2019 disclosing everything in details and asking the OP to cause refund of Rs. 50,500/- went unheeded. This is why the complainant was compelled to file this case against the OP seeking reliefs.
  4. In spite of having received the notice about initiation of this case against them the OP did not turn up to contest the case by filing W/V. This is why the case has been heard exparte.
  5. In support of his case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit, money receipt granted by the OP, copy of notice and BNA. The money receipts dated 22.08.2018 and 10.10.2018 and also 03.11.2018 are found sufficient to prove that a sum of Rs. 50,500/- was collected by the OP from the complainant by the end of 2018. Unchallenged evidence of the complainant goes to prove that Rs. 50,500/- was collected from the complainant with assurance to provide with diploma course.
  6. The letter dated 17.09.2018 which was issued by the OP asking the complainant to get enrolled for the course does not disclose that the complainant would have to go beyond the State of West Bengal for completion of such training. The letter sent by complainant’s Advocate on 01.06.2019 also bears mention about the silence on the part of the OP at the time of complainant’s admission about the requirement of taking training beyond the jurisdiction of West Bengal. Had the OP got anything to say to rebuff such a claim of the complainant the OP would have aired the same by producing document or by furnishing affidavit. The recessive stance taken by the OP clearly bolster the case of the complainant about the supply of misleading information to the students at the time of giving admission. The contention of the Ld. Advocate advanced that the complainant would never have taken admission had they been aware of such a peculiar requirement also appears to be consistent of the case of the complainant as well as the contents of the notice dated 01.06.2019. It goes without saying that there is hardly any scope of drawing an inference that the complainant’s case is tainted with concealment of fact.
  7. Rather, the evidence on record, both orally and documentarily, appear to be quite sufficient to prove the case of the complainant. It goes without saying that the OP invited the complainant for admission and asked to pay a sum of Rs. 50,500/-. It is to be unfair one and it would be justifiable, under such a situation, to put the OP under order to refund a sum of Rs. 50,500/-  to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 01.12.2018 together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- .
  8. Hence, it is ordered that :-

     the case be and the same is allowed exparte with cost of Rs. 25,000/- . The OP will pay Rs. 50,500/- within 3 months hence with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 01.12.2018, failing which the amount will accrue interest at the rate of 12% per annum, he will also pay Rs. 50,000/- for compensation in addition to cost of Rs. 25,000/- within 3 months hence, failing which, the amount will accrue interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

Let plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

 

Dictated and corrected by 

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Silpi Majumder]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.