West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/16/2010

Sri Avishek Gangopadhyay also known as Sri Avishek Ganguly. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Institute of Technology & Marine Engineering. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Nikhil Baran Maity.

25 Jan 2010

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
APPEAL NO. 16 of 2010
1. Sri Avishek Gangopadhyay also known as Sri Avishek Ganguly.S/O Late Ashish Ganguly, 31/E, B.C. Road. PS. Behela, Kolkata- 700034. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Institute of Technology & Marine Engineering.Jhinga, Diamond Harbour Road.PO. Amira, Dist. South 24-Parganas, West Benagal. 743368.2. M/S Orion Edutech Pvt. Ltd.13th floor, Everest House, 46C, Chowringhee Road. Kolkata- 700071.3. M/S Ani Inforgen Pvt. Ltd.BG-2, Sector-II, Salt Lake City. Kolkata- 700091. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Mr. Nikhil Baran Maity., Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 25 Jan 2010
ORDER

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.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

1/25.01.2010.

 

Heard Mr. Nikhil Baran Maity, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.  We have considered the contention of the Ld. Advocate at the admission stage.  It appears that the grievance of the Complainant – Appellant is that the Respondent No. 1 issued a notice and in deference to the reputation of the Institute the Complainant – Appellant responded to the said notice and deposited the money as appears from Annexure “A” & “B” to the memo of appeal.  It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that after such representation of the college authorities being O.P. they cannot absorb themselves from the responsibility and having acted on representation of the college by issuance of the said notice, the Complainant – Appellant made the said application and deposited the money and, therefore, O.P. No. 1 is the service provider.

 

Upon consideration of the said contention of the Ld. Advocate as also perusal of the document enclosed we find that the notice at Annexure “A” dated 27.02.2008 was a notice issued by the proposed employer i.e. O.P. No.3 and, therefore, the notice cannot be said to have been issued by the O.P. No. 1 – college authority.  The Ld. Advocate strongly relied on Annexure “F” being letter dated 23.03.2009 issued on behalf of O.P. No. 1 – Institute and strong reliance was placed on statement made in paragraph 3 of the said letter.  On perusal of the said letter we also find the notice was put in the Notice Board of the Institute and no other responsibility was accepted by the Institute authorities.  Materials on record also do not indicate that the college authority either before the said notice or had given any impression of their taking any responsibility in the matter of proposed employment on the basis of the said campus interview.  In the circumstances we are also of the opinion that the O.P. No. 1 is not the service provider of the present case and, therefore, the impugned order is affirmed hereby.  The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.


MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER, MemberHON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT ,