BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 47 of 2013
Smti. Mousumi Biswas, ……………………………………………………….Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The Chairman, O.P No.1.
Central Seat Allocation Board [JEE(Main)-2013]
Headquater, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela,
P.O. Rourkela – 769008, (Odisha)
2. The Principal, O.P No.2.
National Institute of Technology,
Silchar, Distrct- Cachar. Assam (788010)
3. The Principal O.P.No.3.
Techno Global University, Shillong,
Moulai, Shillong, Meghalaya.
Present: - Sri BishnuDebnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. ChandanaPurkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Rupendra Mohan Das , Advocate for the complainant.
Sri. Dipak Kumar Deb, Advocate for the O.P. No.2.
None is appeared for O.P No. 1 and 3.
Date of evidence………………. 01-12-2014
Date of argument……………... 10/04/2017
Date of judgment……………… 09-05-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Sri Bishnu Dednath)
1. The Complainant filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 for award of refund of admission fee of Rs.41,000/- (Rupees Forty One Thousand) only and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac) only for loss of an academic year of the complainant Smt. Mousumi Biswas, D/o Sri Moni Biswas of Dargapally, Ghungoor, Silchar (referred as ‘complainant’)
2. The complaint brought against the Chairman, Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB), Rourkela, the Principal National Institute of Technology, Cachar, Silchar (NIT) and against the Principal Techno Global University, Shillong. The above parties are referred as O.P Nos.1,2 & 3 respectively.
3. The Grievance of the complaint is as below:-
The complainant appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination on 07-04-2017 vide Roll No. 80800599 and Authentication Code- 3C5CD9C77E8E2E80B0ESAC6ACBD79680 and qualified. The O.P No.1 conducted the said examination. The venue of the examination was in the campus of NIT of O.P No.2. Accordingly, the complainant opted the institution managed by O.P No.3 at Shillong. She deposited RS. 41,000/- as admission fees by Demand Draft dated 25-07-2013, drawn on SBI, NIT Branch, payable in the name of the O.P No.1. Accordingly, she filled up Spot Round Choice List for admission in the Electrical Engineering.When she went to Shillong to get admission it had been noticed that the stream Electrical Engineering which was chosen by the complainant not available in the institution of O.P No.3. The O.P No.3 also informs her that O.P. No. 3 is not in a position to provide faculty amenities etc. as for one candidate only. Accordingly, the O.P No.3 suggest the complainant to get admission at Kolkata.Feeling aggrieved the complaint by letter dated 30-08-2013 addressed to all O.Ps demanded back the deposited admission fees of Rs. 41,000/- but the O.ps did not return the amount.
4. The O.P No.2 on receiving of the notice submitted W/S. In the W/S stated inter-alia that the complainant appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination held at its institution campus and seated for admission. It is also stated that the complainant deposited the admission fees by Demand Draft, but said draft received in favour of the O.P No.1 and accordingly sent it to O.P No.1 as per norms. Therefore, question of refunding the money by the O.P No.2 does not arise. The O.P No.2 further stated that O.P No.1 has no office at the campus of the institution of O.P No.1 for which a very temporary arrangement was made to engage O.P No.1 just for processing papers as per guidelines of O.P No.1.
5. However, the O.P No.1 and 3 did not submit their W/S. Accordingly, in view of order dated 19-05-2014 the case is proceeding exparte against O.P No.1 and as per order dated 03-01-2015 the case is proceeding exparte against the O.P No.3.
6. During hearing the complainant adduced evidence orally and exhibited as many 4 (four) documents including Spot Round Choice List cum candidates agreement, vide Ext.3 computer print of Pay-in-slip of SBI, NIT Branch, vide Ext.2. The complainant exhibited the letter of her demand for refund of admission fees with postal receipt of speed post, vide Ext.4. The contesting O.P did not examine any witness.
7. I have heard argument of the learned advocate of the complainant and the learned advocate of the O.P No.2. The evidence on record including all exhibited document also perused.
8. In this case it is appeared from the evidence on record that the complainant did not get admission to the institution of O.P No.2 or in alternative to any other institution in view of her Joint Entrance Examination 2013 clearance. However, the grievance of the complaint is that she deposited admission fees of Rs. 41,000/- on Demand Draft in favour of O.P No.1 with an intention to get admission in the institution of O.P No.3 at Shillong in the stream Electrical Engineering but the O.P No.3 could not extend the requisite service to provide faculty.
9. We do not receive any representation from O.P No.3 in that aspect as whether the complainant deposited admission fees for admission in the stream of Electrical Engineering. But from the W/S of the O.P No.2 and from evidence of the complainant, it is crystal clear that she secured Assam State Ranking in S C category 391 and permitted to fill up choices online for counseling, vide Ext.1. The Ext.2 indicated that she deposited Rs. 41,123 for admission fees. The contesting O.P also did not deny those facts. But the complainant deposed that she could not get admission in stream of Electrical Engineering under O.P No.3 because no faculty is available. To support the said fact she deposed further that the matter was informed to the O.Ps by her letter dated 30-08-2013. Copy of the said letter with postal receipt of speed post service are Ext.4 and 4(1-B).
10. We have gone through the content of that letter. In the Para 3 (Three) of that letter, she narrated the fact which refuted that she went to Shillong in the institution of O.P No.3 for admission in as the stream of Electrical Engineering. Whether the said letter received by the O.Ps are not clear from the evidence on record. The complainant also did not submit Status Report the speed post service of those letters. Of course, the O.P No.2 submitted W/S but nothing challenge as regarding choice of stream Electrical Engineering. Hence, in this situation when other O.Ps are absent without any representation. It is presumed that the complainant deposited admission fees for admission in the stream of Electrical Engineering.
11. But the complainant submitted Spot Round Choice List vide Ext.3. As per Ext.3 her choice number is ‘11’. I have gone through the relent particulars of choice No 11, the said number ‘11’ is stand for Civil Engineering. However, the learned advocate of the complainant argued that he Ext.3 is computer generated document and the Spot Round Number may be wrongly typed ‘11’ instead of ‘7’. In that aspect he further argued that the fact regarding admission to the stream of Electrical Engineering is not afterthought. Otherwise, the Ext.4. Letter would contain the stream Civil Engineering. Moreover, he argued that if the fact is wrongly mentioned in the Ext.4 regarding admission in the Electrical Engineering in place of Civil Engineering the O.P would challenge the fact but noting challenged.
12. We have been convinced with the argument of the learned advocate of the complaint and opined that the complainant deposited admission fees for admission in the Electrical Engineering. Moreover, the Spot Round Choice List contained serial number ’7’ for stream Electrical Engineering in the institution of the O.P No.3. That is why when we believe the allegation adduced by the complainant that the O.P No.3 failed to provide faculty for Electrical Engineering, in spite of listed the institution for the same subject in view of Ext.3, so non-extending the service by providing faculty of Electric Engineering to the complainant is disservice. So, both the O.P No.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the admission fees of RS.41,000/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for disservice to the complainant. The Compensation is calculated keeping in consideration the fact of loss of academic year of the complainant and mental agony for non admission to the course of Electrical Engineering. The O.P No.1 and 3 are also liable to pay cost of proceeding of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. In this case in view of evidence on record we are not convinced to opine that the O.P No. 2 committed any act which is amounting to disservice to the complainant. So O.P No. 2 is relieved from any liability.
13. With the above reliefs, the O.P No.1 and 3 are directed to pay total amount of Rs.41,000+50,000+1,000=Rs. 92,000/- within 45 days from today. In default, they are jointly and severally liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from 46th day from today till realization of the full amount.
14. Supply free certified copy of this judgment to the parties of the litigation.
Given under hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 9th day of May,2017.
