Date of Filing: 22-03-2016 Date of Final Order: 30-06-2016
Smt. Runa Ganguly, President-In-charge.
The gist of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant No.1, Sampa Sarkar admitted in the one year B. Ed course at the office of the O.P i.e. Debasish Das, owner of the Teaching Learning Institute on May, 2014 by depositing Rs.65,000/-. At first the Complainant intended to admit at Haryana MDU, but the O.P failed to admit at Haryana MDU and informed the complainant that he failed to admit her to the said institute due to shortage of marks. Accordingly, the Complainant claimed her deposited money to the O.P but the O.P assured to the Complainant that he will arrange the Result and Certificate of B. Ed course in the year of 2014-15 from Andhra Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh or Uttarakhand University in any way. The O.P received Rs.85,000/- from the Complainant for the one year B. Ed course. In the mean time the Complainant also deposited one Demand Draft of Rs.20,000/- dated 13/05/2015 in favour of Swami Vivekanda University, Madhya Pradesh to the O.P. But the O.P returned the said draft to the Complainant on 11/03/2016. On 12/03/2016 the Complainant went to the O.P for get back her deposited money of Rs.65,000/- but the O.P did not pay any heed towards the Complainant.
On the other hand, the Complainant No.2, Radharani Paul went to the O.P for getting admission in one year B. Ed course from Haryana in the year of 2014-15 and deposited Rs. 60,000/- but the O.P informed the Complainant that she has failed to admit in the said institute due to shortage of marks. After that the O.P asked to the Complainant that he will arrange to sit in the B. Ed examination from Andhra Pradesh University and thereafter the O.P supplied necessary books of B. Ed course but after few months by not getting any Registration, the Complainant wanted to know regarding the said matter and the O.P informed the Complainant that he has failed to admit in the Andhra Pradesh University also. Accordingly, the Complainant claimed to return back her deposited money to the O.P but the O.P assured the Complainant that he will arrange the Result and Certificate of B. Ed course in the year of 2014-15 from Madhya Pradesh or any University. In the mean time the Complainant deposited one Demand Draft of Rs.20,000/- dated 20/05/2015 in favour of Swami Vivekanda University, Madhya Pradesh to the O.P. But the O.P returned the said draft to the Complainant on 11/03/2016. On 12/03/2016 the Complainant went to the O.P for get back her deposited money of Rs.60,000/- but the O.P did not pay any heed towards the Complainant.
Due to such activities of the O.P. the Complainants also suffered from acute mental pain & agony financial loss and harassment due to deficiency in service of the O.P.
Hence, the Complainants filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay (i) Rs.65,000/- as deposited money by Sampa Sarkar and Rs.60,000/- as deposited money by Radharani Paul, (ii) Rs.10,000/- each Complainants as compensation for mental pain & agony, financial loss and harassment, and (iii) Rs.5,000/- each Complainants towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
It appears that the notice was sent to the O.P., Debasish Das but he refused to receive the same also did not turn up before the Forum and accordingly the case proceeded with Ex-parte against him.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Are the Complainants a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the Complainants and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument by the Complainants in person at a length.
Point No.1.
The Complainants in view to obtain B. Ed degree from a recognized university admitted in the centre of the O.P namely Learning Education Centre against certain payment. The O.P also received the said amount for providing service to the Complainants.
Thus, the relation between the Complainants and the O.P so established from the record, we have no hesitation to say that the Complainants are the consumer of the O.P.
Point No.2.
The O.P. is carrying on his business by opening an education centre in the name and style Teaching Learning Institute within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The total value of the complaint is Rs.1,55,000/- which is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction established.
Point No.3 & 4.
Undisputedly, both the Complainants in view to obtain B. Ed. degree from a recognized University made contact with one Debasish Das who is the Co-ordinator/Proprietor of the Teaching Learning Institute by attracting from advertisement of the O.P.
The point of the dispute is that, after a long discussion with the Co-ordinator of Teaching Learning Institute the Complainants took admission in the said centre for obtaining B. Ed degree by depositing Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- by the Complainant No. 1&2 respectively. The O.P promised to give proper service i.e. took responsibility for obtaining B. Ed degree from any recognized university. The said O.P failed to keeps promise or help the Complainants to obtain B. Ed degree even after receiving a huge amount from the two Complainants.
In the present case the O.P refused the notice sent by this Forum. Thus, the case proceeded with Ex-parte against the O.P and it reasonably be presumed that the O.P has nothing to challenge the case and thus refuse the notice of this Forum.
We have heard the argument at a length advanced by the Complainants in person gone through the documents in the record.
It appears from Annexure “A” that the Complainant No.1 deposited Rs.27,000/- on 28/07/2014, Rs.23,000/- on 11/03/2015, Rs.10,000/- on 24/07/2015 and Rs.4,000/- on 28/08/2015 i.e. total Rs.64,000/- to the Proprietor of Teaching Learning Institute for obtaining B. Ed degree from Andhra University in the academic year 2014-2015.
Annexure “B” is a document which reveals that the Complainant No.2 deposited Rs.25,000/- to the O.P on 23/07/2014. It also appears from Annexure “D” & “D1” that the Complainants also issued Demand Drafts of Rs.20,000/- each on 18/05/2015 and 20/05/2015 in favour of Swami Vivekananda University.
The Complainants in their complaint petition as well as in evidence on affidavit stated that the O.P assured them to provide service them for B. Ed degree from Andhra University/ Hariyana University but the O.P failed to admit them in Haryana or Andhra University. Subsequently, the O.P proposed them to admit in Swami Vivekananda University by depositing Rs.20,000/- each in favour of the said university for obtaining B. Ed course of one year but no admission was made by the O.P. Ultimately, the O.P refunded the said Demand Draft of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant No.1 but did not refund the said draft to the Complainant No.2. The Complainant No. 2 by swearing an affidavit stated that the O.P. took Rs. 60,000/- from her but did not give any money receipt and that was also unchallenged.
Thus, considering the above facts it is very much crystal clear that the O.P took admission fee of Rs.65,000/- and Rs.60,000/- from the Complainant No.1 & 2 respectively with an assurance to admitted them in a recognized university for completion B. Ed course. But the O.P took various pleas for not providing the said service and ultimately deprived the Complainants from obtaining B. Ed degree rather their valuable time and money lost due to action and inaction of the O.P. that tantamount to deficiency in service. It also appears that many private Educational Institution like Teaching Learning Institute continuing business by taking fees from many students of rural as well as Urban Community with an assurance to provide valuable service for obtaining B. Ed degree. At present this type of study centre are mushrooming in our area like cheat fund and running their business by adopting arm of unfair trade practice. Not only in Urban but also in rural area the young group of student become prey of those educational organization/study centres. In the case in hand, two academic years of the Complainants was wasted for not providing due service to the students in question and thus the O.P. is liable to compensate the Complainants. It is well settled in St. Dhirendra Kumar Vs. Mr. M.R. Sarangapani & Ors. Reported in 2015 (1) CPR 611 (NC) that Fictitious educational institutions must be dealt with iron hands.
In the present case the act of the O.P comes under the unfair trade practice as he did collect the fees on 23/07/2014 for admission of the Complainants in a recognized university like as Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttrakhand for the academic year 2014-2015 but till March, 2016 he failed to admitted them in any university also offered them that any how he will provide them the B. Ed certificate of any university. As per Section 2 (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986 unfair trade practice is a subject matter that is covered under the C.P. Act, 1986. Moreover, the O.P. failed to conduct the B.Ed. course of the Complainants as agreed. Thus, in no way he can keep the amount in his custody without providing any service.
In this juncture, we placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 2016 (1) CPR 898 (NC) where in it is decided that institution is liable to refund all amounts received from the Complainants in event course is not conducted.
In the light of foregoing discussion and considering the facts of the case we are constrained to hold that the present complaint is deserve to be allowed.
Thus, the present case succeeds.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/30/2016 be and the same is allowed in ex-parte against the O.P. with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The O.P. is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- to the Complainant No.1 & 2 respectively along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the Complainants within 45 days i/d the O.P. shall have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
