Consumer Complaint No.148 of 2016
Date of filing: 24.8.2016 Date of disposal: 08.5.2017
Complainant: Ravindra Prasad, S/o. Dr. S.P. Agarwal, Dy. CMM (HQ).\/CLW, COS Office, Chittaranjan, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 331.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Centre Head Sri Pradeep Rout, FIITJEE, A-3, Nandalal Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur – 713 216.
2. FIITJEE ltd., represented by Chairman, H.O. 29/A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi, Pin – 110 016.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Biswajit Bandyopadhyay.
Appeared for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 &2: Ld. Advocate, Saugata Dey.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not refund him the amount as paid by him towards the course fee and other charges on the ground that his son is not interested to continue with the said course due to several reasons. By filing this complaint the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OPs to refund the said amount and other reliefs.
We have carefully perused the complaint; papers and documents filed by the parties, written version and evidence on affidavit filed by the OPs and some rulings on which the contesting parties have placed their respective reliance and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties.
During writing judgment it is seen by us that the complaint is filed by the father of the son-student and in the petition of complaint signature has been put by Mr. Ravindra Prasad being the father of the student. But we have noticed that the petition of complaint itself is not supported by affidavit, which is mandatory in view of the observation and direction made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra). The complaint is filed on 24.08.2016 and an affidavit has also been filed separately on the same date stating the statements made in the complaint are true and best of her knowledge. But surprisingly the affidavit has been filed Mrs. Jaya Agarwal, being the mother of the student, who neither filed the complaint nor put her signature therein. As the complaint is filed by the father of the student hence his mother has no capacity to swear any affidavit as she did not state anything in the complaint. Therefore it can be said that the complainant filed is not supported by affidavit. Moreover it is evident from the record that the course fee paid to the OPs was deducted from the account of the mother of the student, but the correspondences made with the OPs for refund of the amount were either by his father or mother. In this respect we are to say that in what capacity the father of the student has filed this complaint, the picture is not clear to us and no reason has been assigned. As the complaint is filed not in proper manner in accordance with law, hence this complaint cannot be adjudicated upon in its present form being defective one.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost being not maintainable on the ground of its several defects as pointed out earlier. However, either the student or his beneficiary is at liberty to file a fresh complaint in proper manner in compliance with the settled law, if not barred otherwise.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
