Presented by Sri. P. K. Dash, Member .

The Complainant pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the gist of the Complaint follows here under:-

The Complainant applied for admission in P.G.P.M. in the office of the business school of Respondents No.1(one) and No.2(two) vide application form No. 93094 in month of March 2010. The Complainant appeared in G.D/P-1 exam held on 5^th April 2010 of the Business School by paying examination fee of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only vide draft R.O. 687213 of State Bank of India, Sohela, the Receipt No. TBS/02951/09-10 was also issued to him. She was then selected and issued with a offer letter from the College/Business School of Respondent No.1(one) and No.2(two) which contained the fee structure for the course. As per the fee structure of the course the candidate had to bear admission fee of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only, infrastructure fee of Rs.55,000/-(Rupees fifty five thousand)only and four installments of Rs. 1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand)only each, in total Rs. 5,95,000/-(Rupees five lakh ninety five thousand)only and as per the fee structure, the Complainant deposited admission fee. Infrastructure fee and Ist installment in total Rs.2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand)only in different dates as per the stipulation of admission dates vide drafts and the receipts of all the drafts are also issued to the Complainants by the office of Respondents No.1(one) and No.2(two).

Further case of the Complainant is that, she joined the institution on 13^th July 2010 and continued for one week only. The Complainant came to know that the business school of Respondent No.1(one) and No.2(two) was neither registered with A.I.C.T.E. nor affiliated to any University in India and the standard of study was not upto mark for which she discontinued her further studies from the college of respondents. The Complainant then sent a withdrawal application on Dt.02/08/2010 to the Business School of Respondent No.1(one) and 2(two) to which the Executives Committee members of Respondents No.1(one) and 2(two) telephonically refused to refund the fee i.e. Rs.2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand)only paid to it by the Complainant and informed the aforesaid amount shall be forfeited. The Managing Committee has not communicated their decision in the matter in writing. More over the Complainant has paid all the ancillary cost for appearing in the examination and has not attended classes or any services has been taken for the Respondent No.1(one) and No.2(two) hence the respondents are not entitled to forfeit her hard earned money.

Further contention of the the complaint is that as the Business School of Respondent No.1(one) and No.2(two) is neither registered nor affiliated and the Respondents have misguided and cheated the Complainant with her carrier and more over she had not derived any benefit or services from the College of Respondents No.1(one) and No.2(two) and by virtue of decisions/judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in different cases if a candidate do not continue the further studies then he/she is entitled for refund of total amount deposited. Therefore the Complainant claims that the total amount i.e. Rs. 2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand)only deposited by her be refunded to her with 18%(eighteen percent) interest from the date of deposit. The legal notice of the Complainant is also not replied by the Respondents.

In the instant circumstance and facts of the case, the Complainant alleges deficiency in service cause to her by the Respondent No.1(one) and No.2(two) on the ground of fraud played with her by the Respondents for which she sustained mental agony, harassment, financial loss and loss of valuable one year of her life and carries which amount to unfair trade practice by the Respondent No.1(one) and No.2(two) and the Complainant seeks the direction of the Forum to pass an order directing the Respondent No.1(one) and No.2(two) to refund Rs. 2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh two thousand)only along with 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum from the date of deposit and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only for the loss of valuable one year of her education carrier, Rs.5,500/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred)only towards legal notice, Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only towards litigation expenses and Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only forwards mental agony harassment in total compensation of Rs. 6,00,500/-(Rupees six lakh five hundred)only with interest to the Complainant.

The Complainant in support of her case relies on the xerox attested copies of the following documents.

1. Letter of Globsyn Business School to Anamica Agrawal for her selection to the course (Annexure P-3) along with fee structure for the course -2(sheets).

2. Receipt for Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only issued by Globsyn Technologies Limited to Anamica Agrawal (Annex-P-4)

3. Receipt for infrastructure fees of Rs.55,000/-(Rupees fifty five thousand)only (1 Sheet) Annex-P-6)

4. Receipt of Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand)only towards Ist installment (Annxure-P-6) ) (1 sheet)

5. Letter of Anamica Agrwal to Registrar Globsyn Business School to refund her entire money (Annexure-P-7) 1 sheet.

6. Legal notice (Annexure-P-8) (5 sheets)

7. Postal receipts.

8. 2000(3) CPR 49 (NC) (8 sheets)

9. Letter of Opposite Party to the Complainant (1 Sheet)

10. Information Brochure of Opposite Party for admission 2010 (four pages)

11. Prospectuses 2010 of the Opposite Party (twenty pages)

12. Net down loaded copy of Judgment Dt. 09/07/2010 passed in C.A. No. 5213-5214 of 2010 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (three sheets)

Being noticed the Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared before the Forum and filed his version denying all the allegations of the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1(one) did not opt to appear in this complaint inspite of several opportunities hence set ex-parte in this case by this Forum.

The contends of the version of Opposite Party No.2(two) is as follows:-

As per provision ennumerated U/s 11 of C.P. Act-1986, the complaint lodged U/s 12(a) of the said Act is not maintainable before this Forum as both the Opposite Parties are having their office at Kolkata which is out side jurisdiction of this Forum and also entire cause of action arose at Calcutta.

The Complainant in her complaint Para-16 admitted, neither he has attended the classes nor hired any services of the Opposite Parties, hence refund of the consideration paid for hiring of service do not come with the scope and provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. Further question of pricing can not be the subject matter of adjudication before the learned Forum, the Complainant would have filed a money claim against the Opposite Parties before proper Forum.

The Opposite Parties are under no contractual obligation to refund the consideration for hiring of the service. On contrary fees paid are non-refundable as per specific representation of Opposite Parties. So also the Opposite Parties at no point of time have misrepresented or misstatements regarding the genunity of course and the Complainant in put to strict proof of the fact. A substantial amount of fees collected has been spent for building infrastructure for in parting training/eduction to the students and hence it is not possible to refund the fees to the Complainant.

Further the Complainant has suppressed the material fact that he has simultaneously taken admission in some others institution and had chosen not to persue her study in this institution of the Opposite Parties after blocking one seat which could have been occupied by some other student. Further it is contended that refund of educational fees do not come under the scope and ambit of Consumer Protection Act-1986.

The Opposite Parties filed his memo of written argument to high light his case.

The Opposite Parties seek the redressal of the Forum for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

Delving deep into the pleadings of the Parties, documents and case laws available on record, the issues likely to be decided as follows:-

1. Whether the Forum got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?

2. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer of Respondents/Opposite Parties ?

3. Is there any deficiency of service by the Respondents/ Opposite parties to the Complainant ?

Issue No.1(one).

In answering to this issue, the Forum attract the provision of 11(c) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 that District Forum shall have the jurisdiction to entertain complaint if cause of action arose within the local limit of the Forum wholly or in part. Here in this case both the Opposite Parties have their officers at Kolkata but the Complainant applied for admission to the course from Sohela, Odisha under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover application form prospector are sent to the Complainant at Sohela, Odisha and fees in different heads is also paid by the Complainant in shape of drafts drawn at Sohela, Odisha are also accepted by the respondents issuing receipts there to. Telephonic call was also made to the Complainant on 9^th August 2010 to his place of residence at Sohela, in the District of Bargarh, Odisha. Hence accumulating all the activities and transactions between the Complainant and the respondents, it is safely held that cause of action arose at Sohela, Odisha, which is under the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this Forum got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the Complainant.

Issue No.2(two).

In answer to this issue it is admitted facts which is proved by the receipts issued on different dates by the Respondents for receiving fees in different heads from the Complainant for admission into the cause of as well as for course fees can be safely concluded as the consideration money for hiring services of the respondents for imparting standard education to the Complainant.

This hypothesis is supported by the decision reported in AIR 1978(SC) P 548 at page 583 (para-II) between Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vrs Rajappa and Others.

In the case at hand the Complainant has hired the services of the Respondents by the paying consideration money and is a Consumer of the Respondents/Opposite Parties as per scope and provision enumerated U/s 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Issue No. 3(three).

In answer to this issue, the Complainant over whelmingly influenced by the advertisement published in the prospectus of Globsyn Business School with attractive photographs of the different Universities with whom the Globsyn Business School is having tie up for imparting very lucrative business course of distinct international standard. The Complainant paid Rs.2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand)only in different heads with a very high ambition and took admission in the Business School of Respondents. Continued for one week study in the institution and from reliable sources came to know that the Globsyn Business School was neither registered under A.I.C.T.E. nor affiliated to any University which is against the facts mentioned in the prospectus for which the Complainant lost his valuable one year of her carrier. This specific allegation of the Complainant is not at all disproved by any cogent evidence or documents by the Respondents/Opposite Parties who are the custodian of the documents relating to certificate of A.I.C.T.E. and University affiliation. Upon whom the burden of proof was lying. Further the Respondents/Opposite Parties have not come up with any evidence in their defense. More over the legal demand notice Dt.04/09/2010 sent by Advocate, Rana Ranjit Singh of Supreme Court was also not replied by the Respondents/Opposite Parties where in it was a scope for Respondents/Opposite Parties to set forth their defense claim which they have opt to loose.

In contrary without any registration with A.I.C.T.E. or affiliation of any University, the Globsyn Business School has taken ransom amount for fees in different heads has deceived students in their valuable professional carrier. This is an obvious case of misleading and mis representation on behalf of the Respondents and tentamounts to unfair trade practice enumerated U/S 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act by the Respondents/Opposite Parties. This contention is upheld by the decision reported in 2000(3) CPR 49 (NC) in the case of Bhupesh Khurana and Others Vrs Biswa Buddha Parishad and Others.

Considering all the facts and evidence the Respondent No.1(one) and 2(two) are held responsible for unfair trade practice which falls in the perview of deficiency in service as defined in the CP Act.

Considering all the facts and evidence brought before the forum order as follows :-

- O R D E R -

The Forum direct jointly and severally to the Respondent No.1(one) and No.2(two) to refund Rs. 2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand)only to the Complainant paid by him as admission expenses to the Respondents along with interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum from the respective dates of receipts of the amount till date of payment and also pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as cost of litigation, harassment, mental agony deficiency in service and for loss of one year of valuable carrier of the Complainant.

The Order shall be carried out within forty five days from the date of order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till the actual realization of amount.

The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.

                                                                                                                                       Typed to my dictation

                                                                                                                                       and corrected by me.

           I agree,                                                 I agree,                                                                  I agree,                                      

( Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)                     ( Smt. Anjali Behera)                                             (  Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

      P r e s i d e n t.                                      M e m b e r.                                                           M e m b e r.