Dt. of filing – 11/10/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 08/11/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Sri Kaushik Sarkar under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties namely 1) Brainware Computer Education Centre, P.S. Gariahat, Kolkata-700019 2) Brainware Computer Education Centre, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700032 and 3) The Director, Brainware Computer Education Centre, P.S. Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700091 alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that Opposite Parties are the education institute dealing with computer educations and other allied courses of Software and Hardware. Complainant being a student on seeing an advertisement of the Opposite Parties contacted the Opposite Parties who suggested him for the admission of course namely “PGD-CPA”. Opposite Parties also assured him for job placement. So, Complainant opted the said course of “PGD-CPA” and paid the course fees to the tune of Rs.44,101/- to the Opposite Parties. Complainant has submitted all the photo copies of his educational testimonials and certificates for scrutinisation of Opposite Parties. Complainant regularly attended the class for 4 – 5 months but thereafter representative of the Opposite Parties told the Complainant that the said course namely “PGD-CPA” is not for the Complainant as he is an Arts student and suggested re-admission in another course. Complainant was shocked to hear that and so he requested to refund the course fees. But Opposite Parties refused to refund the money. Complainant also sent a letter to the Office of the Opposite Parties for refund of the money. But all in vain. Thus the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying for directing the Opposite Parties to refund the course fees deposited by the Complainant, to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, copy of the several receipts issued by the Opposite Parties acknowledging payment of the course fees by the Complainant, copy of his ID card, copy of letter dated 9/11/2017 sent by the Complainant to the Director, Brainware and the copy of complaint made by the Complainant before the Consumer Grievance Cell.
On perusal of record it appears that written version has been filed by Opposite Party No.3 denying the allegations made in the complaint. It is contended by the Opposite Party No.3 that the Brainware Group of Companies only supply the study material and technical support for computer development education and has no right to admit any student. Thus the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
It appears that Opposite Party No.1 & 2 did not take any step and so vide order dated 31/1/2019 the case proceeded ex-parte against them.
During the course of trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. But no questionnaire was filed by Opposite Party No.3 inspite of opportunity given to him.
Ultimately argument has been advanced on behalf of the Complainant and Complainant has also filed brief notes of argument. But Opposite Party No.3 did not take any step on the date of argument.
So the following points require determination:-
- Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion.
In support of his claim that he opted the course namely “PGD-CPA” as suggested by the Opposite Parties for a bright future, Complainant has filed the copy of the receipts issued by the Opposite Parties on payment of requisite course fees by the Complainant. It is evident from the receipt that the name of the course has been stated as “PGD-CPA”. Opposite Party No.3 in the written version has stated that they do not admit any student for any course and only provide study material and technical support for computer development education. But as already highlighted above, Opposite Party has neither filed any document nor has adduced any evidence in support of the said contention that they only supply study material and technical support. Since the receipts filed by the Complainant bears specific mention of “PGD-CPA” course, in the absence of any contrary material before this Forum, Complainant has been able to establish his claim that he paid amount of Rs.44,101/- as the course fees for the course “PGD-CPA” suggested by the Opposite Parties and thus he is entitled to refund of the said sum. However, on consideration of the nature of dispute, we find no justification to allow compensation as prayed by the Complainant.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/604/2018 is allowed on contest.
Opposite Parties are directed to refund the course fees of Rs.44,101/- to the Complainant within 2(Two) months from the date of this order.
Opposite Parties are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the aforesaid period of 2(Two) months in default, the entire sum shall carry interest @9% p.a. till realisation.
