DATE OF FILING : 14-08-2013. DATE OF S/R : 13-09-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26-02-2014. Sri Suvendu Payra, son of late Paritosh Payra, residing at village – Kuliatta, P.O. Bodhra, P.S. Ramnagar, District – Purba Midnapur.------------------------------ COMPLAINANT. - Versus - Calcutta Institute of Technology, having its office & institution at Banitabla, P.S. Uluberia, District – Howrah, PIN – 711 316.---------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY. 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. Sri Suvendu Payra, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund Rs. 30,400/-, to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation costs and other relief as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 2. Brief facts of the case is that as an educated unemployed youth, complainant got admitted to MBA Course run by O.P. For this purpose, complainant paid Rs. 60,000/- as 1st semester fee on 15-08-2012 out of Rs. 75,000/- required for 1st semester. Also on 13-10-2012, he paid Rs. 400/- as registration fee. O.P. issued two money receipts dated 15-08-2012 & 13-10-2012 vide Annexures. But O.P. could not hand over registration certificate to him for which he could not sit for the examination of 1st semester. Due to such non-availability of registration certificate, complainant’s career come to an end. So, on 04-12-2012, he wrote a letter to O.P. requesting for refund of Rs. 60,000/- and also he visited O.P.’s office with the same request. Thereafter, O.P. paid Rs. 30,000/- and forced him to put his signature on a letter dated 31-05-2013 duly prepared by O.P. After receiving the copy such letter, complainant came to know that Rs. 30,000/- was paid by O.P. was towards full and final settlement of his claim of Rs. 60,000/- vide Annexure. And it is written in the letter that the rest amount of Rs. 30,000/- would be settled by the agent of O.P. namely Mr. Kanai Debnath. But it is categorically stated by the complainant that O.P. has taken the entire amount of Rs. 60,000/-, why Kanai Debnath would pay Rs. 30,000/-? Moreover, due to O.P.’s utter negligence, complainant’s career building course has come to an end. Having a middle class agricultural back ground, with a great difficulty, he could arrange for Rs. 60,000/- for separate career, but his dream could not be fulfilled. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief. 3. Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is specific plea of the O.P. that it is a registered society established under W.B. Societies Registration Act, 1961 vide Annexure ‘A’. And it does not have any juristic entity. So, it cannot be sued in its name. Accordingly, the case is not maintainable. Further, O.P. has stated that complainant on his own will has left the course, it was not due to non-availability of registration certificate, and he himself wrote a letter dated 31-05-2013 to the director of O.P. seeking refund of Rs. 30,000/- as full and final settlement vide Annexure ‘B’. In that way, complainant himself had relinquished the rest amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Here we take a pose. If it is accepted that on prayer of the complainant through letter dated 31-05-2013, O.P. paid Rs. 30,000, it is to be kept in mind that O.P. also adopted the version of the complainant written in that letter. There it is also written that ‘rest amount will be settled down by the agent’. We all know, agent always acts on behalf of the principal. Even in spite of receiving that letter, O.P did not controvert the contention of the letter written by the complainant. So, it is nothing but O.P.’s dilatory tactics to harass the complainant. Complainant could not sit for the examination. Moreover, he was physically and mentally harassed by O.P. since 31-05-2013. On that very day, O.P. should have paid him entire amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Complainant is a consumer of O.P. as O.P. is running an educational institute. O.P. should not have played with the emotion of the complainant. O.P. should not have forgotten its social responsibility and obligation. So, in both ways O.P. is found to be deficient in providing service to the complainant. Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit. Points under consideration are accordingly decided. In the result, the complaint succeeds. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 289 of 2013 ( HDF 289 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. That the O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 30,400/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. That the complainant do get an award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs. The O.P. is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 42,400/- ( Rs. 30,400+ Rs.10,000 + Rs. 2,000/-) to the complainant within the stipulated period, the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. 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. |
