IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/165/2016  

 Date of Filing:            16/11/16                                      Date of Final Order: 27/12/18

Complainant:      Md. Jiaul Biswas

                           S/O Abdul Bari Biswas

                          Vill  Chandrahat, PO Haribhanga,

                          P.S.& Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742302

-Vs-

Opposite Party:      Jatish Chandra Saha

                               S/O Laxman Chandra Saha,

                              Assistant Teacher of Chandrahat Primary School,

                              PO Haribhanga,

                              P.S.& Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742302

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant           :        In Person

 Agent/Advocate for the O.P.            :    Manoar Hossain Mondal

Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati…………………........President.                              

                    Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

                                      FINAL ORDER

ASISH  KR. SENAPATI, PRESIDING MEMBER.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

                        One Md. Jiaul Biswas (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Jatish Chandra Saha (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of complaint case is as follows:

         The Complainant is a Para Teacher  of Chandrahat Primary School and the O.P. is an Assistant Teacher of that school. As per notification of the State Govt. 50% marks in Madhyamik examination is essential for school teacher.The Complainant has below 50% marks in his Madhyamik examination. The O.P. was running an Open School, namely, Naba Bharat Siksha Parishad and he advised the Complainant to admit in his school on payment of Rs.9000/- for getting pass certificate and assured that the amount would be refunded if the certificate is not valid. The Complainant and his wife paid Rs.18,000/- and got Admit Card, Marks Sheet and Certificate which are not genuine. The State Govt. did not accept the Admit Card and  Marks Sheet. Finding no other alternative, the complainant demanded refund of  Rs. 18,000/- from the O.P. both verbally and in writing but in vain. The matter was reported  to Murshidabad P.S. in writing on 22.06.16 and the P.S. advised him to take shelter of law.Hence, the Case has been filed praying for compensation  of Rs. 48,000/- against the O.P.

         The OP contested the case by filling written version on 30.03.17 inter alia denying the materials allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the Complainant has no cause of action and he has no locus standee to file the complaint. The O.P. has no connection with Naba Bharat Siksha Parishad. The Complainant admitted himself in the said Institution in 2010 and he has received all documents.  The O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with cost.

On the basis of the above version , the following points are framed for proper adjudication :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point No.1

       The Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as the Complainant hired the service of the O.P. on payment of consideration for getting valid marks sheet and certificate. 02.06.15.

         In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer as the O.P. has no connection with Naba Bharat Siksha Parishad.

    Having gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence and xerox copies of documents submitted by the Complainant, we find that the Complainant and his wife Runa Laila got admit card and H.S. Marks Statement,2010 from Naba Bharat Siksha Parishad. The Complainant has failed to establish that the O.P. is/was the Director of Naba Bharat Siksha Parishad and he paid any amount to the O.P. for hiring services of Naba Bharat Siksha Parishad. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant is not a Consumer in view of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. act,1986.

Point No.2

         The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

  On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point Nos.3&4

          The Complainant submits that the  OP has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 18,000/- ,compensation of Rs.20,000/-and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- from the O.P.

 In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case as he has failed to establish allegations against the O.P.

   We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. It is the allegations of the Complainant that the O.P. , being Director of Naba Bharat Siksha Parishad received Rs.18,000/- from the Complainant for giving certificate and marks sheet through Naba Bharat Siksha Parishad to the Complainant and his wife on assurance to refund the amount if document are found invalid but the O.P. did not refund the amount in spite of non acceptance of the documents by the State Govt. But the Complainant has failed to establish that he paid any amount to the O.P. for the said purpose. We also do not find any reason to go into the merit on Point Nos.3&4 as the Complainant is not a Consumer. We think that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 16.11.16 and admitted on 28.11.16 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders..

             In the result, the Consumer case fails.

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                        Ordered

that the Complaint Case No. CC/165/2016 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

             President.                        

Member                                                                                      President