DATE OF FILING : 18.09.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 10.12.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26.11.2015.
Soumya Sen,
son of Sri Gobinda Prasad Sen,
residing at 88, B.K. Street, Uttarpara,
District Hooghly,
PIN 712253. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Kuntala Das College of Education,
being represented by its
Secretary via. Bishnupada Das,
situated at village Basukhali, P.O. Anandanager,
District Howrah,
PIN 711227………. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Soumya Sen, praying for a direction upon the o.p., Kuntala Das College of Education, represented by Secretary, Bishnupada Das, praying for a direction upon the o.p. to refund the advance amount of Rs. 20,000/- and to pay him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a student aspiring for admission in the two year diploma in education programme of the o.p. and on 07.06.2013 going to the college he met with Sri Bishnupda Das, the Secretary of the o.p. college, to know about the course fees and he was told that he has to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month and total amount of Rs. 96,000/- for 24 months and also he is to pay some amount as donation in favouor of the Welfare Trust and i.e., Birendra Kumar Das Welfare Trust. On 11.6.2013 the petitioner and his father went to the o.p. and paid Rs. 20,000/- as donation in advance by a cheque and on 15.6.2013 but when the petitioner submitted application form before the o.p. then he told that the petitioner has to make payment of Rs. 2,80,000/- which includes both donation charges and course fees. The petitioner became confused and all his dreams got nipped in the bud and he decided not to continue the course and requested the o.p. to refund Rs. 20,000/- which was paid in advance and the o.p. assured him that he would refund the amount after some time. The petitioner visited the o.p. for a number of times and on 22.7.2014 the o.p. told him that he would not refund and thus compelling the petitioner to file this case.
- The o.p. appeared in the case and filed written version denying the allegations made against him stating that the case is not maintainable and the petitioner has no cause of action to file the and also submitted that such donation was made by the petitioner along with his father voluntarily without any influence and prayed for dismissal of the case as the petitioner decided not to take admission and also submitted that the trust has no nexus with the o.p. and also submitted that the educational institution does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prayed for dismissal of the case.
4. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether the petitioner deposited a sum of 20,000/- in favour of the o.p.’s Welfare Trust ?
- Whether it is a case of unfair trade practice ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit in chief as well as xerox copy of a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of Birendra Kumar Das Welfare Trust and application form of Kuntala Das College of Education and also letter issued by our Assistant Director, C.A. & F.B.P., Howrah, who requested the o.p. or his representative to attend a meeting and then the matter was sent to this Forum. This Forum heard the ld. counsel for both the parties. The ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per direction of the o.p., Bishnupada Das he issued a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of Birendra Kumar Das Welfare Trust but the o.p. abruptly enhancing the donation charges and course fees from Rs. 96,000/- to Rs. 2,86,000/-. The petitioner decided not to continue the course and so he prayed for refund of the donation money from the o.p.
- Ld. Counsel for the o.p. on the other hand submitted that in the instant case the petitioner prayed for refund of money from an education institution claiming that he was a student but our National Commission in the case of Regional Institute ofCo operative Management v s. Nabin KumrChowdhury decided that student is not a consumer and so he cannot file a case under the provisions of theC.P. Act, 1986 and he has liberty to seek the grievances before the properForum i.e.,CivilCourt. He also referred to another judgment of the National Commission being 2014 Vol. IV CPR page 145 wherein our National Commission opined that when examination board conducts examination in discharge on its statutory function involving holding of periodical examination, answer scripts, declaring result and issue certificate then there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties i.e., student and the education institution.
- This Forum keeping in mind the submission of ld. counsels of both sides and also keeping in mind the respective cases of the parties finds that the petitioner came before the o.p. for admission in his institution and as per verbal agreement deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by cheque in favour of welfare trust mentioned by the o.p., Bishnupada Das, who admitted the same and such payment was almost a precondition for admission. It is not the case of the o.p. that he never advised the petitioner to deposit the donationof Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the trust and the o.p. simply submitted that there is no nexus between the o.p. college and the welfare trust. It is hard to believe that the petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of welfare trust on his own when being unemployed he wanted to admit himself in the D.Ed. College and due to lack of sufficient consideration money he had to decide not to pursue the course. It is rather clear from the cheque that as per o.p.’s advice the donation was made and now the o.p. cannot deny to refund the same as the above facts comes under the purview of unfair trade practice as no denial of receiving the money by trust and simply saying that he has no nexus with the trust.
In view of above the case of the petitioner succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 517 of 2014 ( HDF 517 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by o.p., Bishnupada Das to the petitioner.
The petitioner is entitled to refund of RS. 20,000/- from the o.p. Bishnupada Das, who represented the o.p. college and he is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with costs of Rs. 5,000/- totaling Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. and also the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
