IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/138/2017
Date of Filing: 24.08.2017 Date of Final Order: 04.01.2019
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Smt. Bidishya Sarkar
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Subhanjan Sengupta
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………...............Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish kumar senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Kabir Hossain and Others(here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against the Branch Manager, Smart Value Product and Services Ltd. and Others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainants admitted themselves for the nursing training at OP No.1 who assured that they would recruit the Complainants in different Hospitals and Nursing Homes. The OPs submitted certificate and money receipts to all the Complainants and asked them to contact for training from the OPs but after a laps of time the OP No.1 did not inform the Complainants about the date of training. On query by the Complainants, the OPs stopped responding to their grievances. A few Complainants lost their certificates and money receipts for which they lodged General Diary at their respective Police Stations as the OPs neither started training nor refunded the amount to the Complainants. The Complainants have filed the case praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service. The Complainants prayed for refund of Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum till payment and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for cost and harassment against the OPs.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written versions on 17.01.18 contending that the case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 submits that the OP No.1 is a Public Limited Company and is involved into the selling of educational books and health personal care, home care and life style products and also marketing and selling the certificate course of basic computer education and training. The OP No.1 had neither offered any type of nursing training nor any allied education in any
manner of employment. The Complainants are not consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and allegations against the OP No.1 is not correct.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for decision
- Are the Complainants consumers under the provision of the CP Act, 1986 ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?
- Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for ?
Point No.1
We have gone through the written complaint, written versions , written argument and documents filed by both sides. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that the Complainants are consumers as they purchased books and hired the services of the OPs for their nursing training.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the Complainants purchased some products from the OPs and the Complainants received the purchased items from the OPs. It is argued that the Complainants have not hired services of the OPs and the Complainants are not consumers in terms of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
On perusal of materials on record, we find that the Complainants purchased some items including books from the OPs against payment. The Complainants have alleged that they paid money for nursing training as per assurance of the OPs but no such document has been filed by the Complainants. We find that some documents have filed on behalf of Complainant Nos. a,b,c,d,h,,j,k,l,o,r,s,t,w,y,aa and dd in respect of receipt of Rs.2250/- each towards programme fee for IT Smart Programme fee on behalf of APLL. Therefore, we hold that the Complainants are consumers in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Ld Advocate for the Complainants submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.
Point Nos.3&4.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that the OPs received payment from the Complainants on assurance of giving nursing training and providing job in Hospital and nursing Home. He argues that the OPs have deficiency in service as they did not render nursing training to the Complainant. It is contended that the Complainants paid Rs.90,000/- for Nursing training but the OPs did not provide any Nursing training. He argues that the OPs may be directed to refund the sum of Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum till payment and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the OPs never assured the Complainants to give nursing training and jobs in Nursing Homes and Hospitals. It is argued that some of the Complainants paid Rs.2250/- each towards programme fee in IT Smart Programme but the Complainants did not turn up to receive training. It is urged that the OP No.1 is ready and willing to provide training for IT Smart Programme to the persons who paid course fees.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. On going through the xerox copies of documents submitted by the Complainants, we find that the Complainants except Complainants Nos. e,f,g,i,m,n,p,q,u,v,x,z, bb,cc,ee,ff,gg,hh,ii,zz paid Rs.2250/- each as programme fee for IT Smart Programme. The Complainants have not even stated that they have not received any training for IT Smart Programme and the OP No.1 is also silent as to whether the Complainants who paid programme fee for IT Smart Programme received the training or not. It is the duty and obligation of the OP No.1 to give training for IT Smart Programme as the OP No.1 received Rs.2250/- each towards programme fee. Therefore, we hold that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service. We think that the OP No.1 may be directed to make arrangement within the period of 1 month for IT Smart Program for the Complainants from whom programme fees have been received by the OP No.1. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 24.08.17 and admitted on 06.09.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds in part.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/138/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest against the OP No.1 without cost and dismissed against the OP No.2 without cost.
The OP No.1 is directed to make arrangement for training of IT Smart Programme to the Complainants who had already paid programme fees within 30 days from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
