West Bengal

Nadia

CC/22/2023

SAHANA SULTANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DURGAPUR ANANDAMOY B.ED COLLEGE - Opp.Party(s)

SATYABRATA GHOSH

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NADIA
170,DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING.
NADIA, KRISHNAGAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/2023
( Date of Filing : 20 Mar 2023 )
 
1. SAHANA SULTANA
D/O- RIYAJ SHAIKH, NALUAPARA, P.O. KRISHNAGAR, P.S. KOTWALI, DIST. NADIA, PIN. 741101
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DURGAPUR ANANDAMOY B.ED COLLEGE
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VILL- DURGAPUR, P.O.- BHATJANGLA, P.S.- KOTWALI, DIST- NADIA, PIN- 741102
2. THE PRINCIPAL DURGAPUR ANANDAMOY B.ED COLLEGE
VILL- DURGAPUR, P.O.- BHATJANGLA, P.S.- KOTWALI, DIST- NADIA, PIN- 741102
3. WEST BENGAL UNIVERSITY OF TEACHERS TRAINING, EDUCATION PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR 25/2 & 25/3 BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD, KOLKATA- 700019
WEST BENGAL
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:SATYABRATA GHOSH, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 10 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

CC/22/2023

 

ORDER No.03

DTD. 10.04.2023

 

Today is fixed for further admission hearing.

Ld. Adv. for the complainant is present.

Case is taken up for further admission hearing.

Hd. Ld. Adv. for the complainant.

Perused the documents.

Complainant alleged that she filed an application for admission in B.Ed course before OP no. 1 and 2  after paying application fee amounting to Rs. 600/- but OP no. 1 and 2 neither call her for cancelling nor informed her about the fate of her application.

Even they did not give any reply in respect of her application under RTI Act.

Perused the petition of complaint.

Also perused the documents.

During hearing Ld. Adv. for the complainant argued that as complainant paid application fee amounting to Rs. 600/- so she be treated as consumer.

He cites a decision reported in (2009)1 CPJ 25.

we have carefully gone through the same.

In the said case appellant Buddist Mission Dental College and Hospital admitted the respondent informing that their college was affiliated to the Magadh University and was recognize by the Dental counseling of India but subsequently, it was found as false.

Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to refund the admission fees and also directed to pay compensation and litigation cost.

So we find that fact of the said case is totally different

Accordingly, we find that said decision is not application in the present case.

Ld. ADV. for the complainant cited another decision (1992)1 CPJ 76.

In the said case complainant enroll as a private candidate in the Matriculation Examination  and he sat for the said examination but  his result was published in the official gazette latter and his result was described  their in as  RL( result latter).

Fact of the said case it totally different.

Accordantly, we find that said decision is not applicable in the present case.

In this contest we have carefully gone through section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 which read as under:-

  1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or
  2. hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or  promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised,  or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred  payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

 

In this contest we have carefully gone through section 2(42) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 which read as under:

 

(42) “service”  means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited  to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information , but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge  of under a contract of personal service;

From the afore said discussion it is clear before us  that as per  the allegation of petition of complaint, complainant cannot be treated as consumer and OP no. 1-2 cannot be treated as service provider the allegation  which has mentioned in the petition of complaint does not come  under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Accordingly, we find that the present case is not fit for admission,

 

Hence,

It is

Ordered

that the present case be and same is dismissed as being  not admitted.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.