Md. Imamuddin,

c/o. Rayasat Hussain,

WW/18 Unit – 1 Old Traffic

P.O. & P.S. Kharagpur,

West Midnapore,

PIN – 721301.. ------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.        Bharat Technology,

  Village – Jadurberia, P.O. Banitala,

  P.S. Uluberia, Howrah,

  PIN – 711316.

2.        City Office,

  Dir.- Prof. R. Debnath,

  ‘Subhamplaza’,

  83/1, Dr. Suresh Chandara Banarjee  Road

  ( at Beleghata Main Road & By Pass Crossing ),

  P.S. Beleghata,

  Kolkata – 700010.-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Md. Imamuddin, took admission in BCA Course for the session

2008-11 to the institution run by O.Ps. on payment of Rs. 30,000/- vide Annexure money receipt  dated 30-07-2008. It is stated by the complainant that out of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- was taken by o.ps. as laboratory caution deposit which is refundable at the end of the  course vide annexure xerox copy of fee structure statement of the O.Ps.  Complainant completed his course on 04-07-2011 and on 26-07-2011 he claimed the amount of Rs. 5,000/-  which he deposited as caution money. On the same date, he also returned his books taken from library of the institute in good condition vide annexure certificate dated 26-07-2011. For the first time, the complainant was asked to enquire about the refund of such Rs. 5,000/- after one month. When the complainant again enquired about the same thing, he was asked to enquire from time to time and with all misleading words such as, ‘at the end of the month’ or ‘at the beginning of the next month’. Thereafter, he made contacts with Consumer Affairs Department and as per their advice he sent several request letters such as dated 20-12-2012 & 10-01-2013 to the O.Ps. to refund his Rs. 5,000/-. But no reply was sent to the complainant by the O.Ps. And finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition with a prayer to direct the O.Ps. to refund Rs. 5,000/- and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to him.  

2.                  Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly,

case  was heard on contest.

3.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            O.ps. in their written

version have denied and disputed all material facts and allegations of the complainant leveled against them. On going through their written version, it is   found that O.Ps. have repeated each and every line written by the complainant in his complaint / petition, only with a beginning phrase “it is denied”. In support of their contention, O.Ps. also filed an affidavit and copies of reported judgments, we have gone carefully through all the documents filed by both parties. Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps. appeared on 26-07-2013, with a submission of amicable settlement and on 31-07-2013, on the date of final hearing they again came up with a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- to hand it over to the complainant. But complainant refused to accept on the ground that for long two years, he was ill-treated and harassed by the O.Ps.  and he prayed for compensation amount. Here, we are to pose a little. Even in the written version, O.Ps. never said that they want to refund the caution deposit of Rs. 5,000/- rather they wanted to portray their innocent image in this respect. Being an educational institution, O.Ps. should have been more careful about their attitude towards their students. Students go there to learn something. The persons of the top authority should not play with the emotion of the students and they should not  tell a lie. They are to teach the students. What lesson students would get from these kind of institutions ? By way of harassing the complainant, O.Ps. are deficient in providing service to the complainant. As per their terms and conditions, O.Ps. should have returned the caution deposit of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant after the completion of the course. Accordingly we find, that O.Ps. were negligent in discharging duties towards the complainant. And the case succeeds on merit.  

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  83  of 2013 ( HDF 83 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 5,000/- along with a compensation of Rs. 4,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within one month from this order  i.d., the entire decreetal amount of Rs. 10.000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment. 

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah                                      

                                          .