Date of filing : 8/6/2017.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Order No.23 Date: 8.5.2018
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT :-
Sri Sibasis Sarkar, Ld. President.
The Complainant Shri Pinak Pani Ghosh has filed the present petition of complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein he has stated that he is a Junior Engineer(Civil) in the department of WRIDD(Water Resources Investigation Development Department, under the Government of West Bengal. After obtaining necessary No Objection Certificate from the Director of Personnel & Ex-officio Chief Engineer, Government of West Bengal, the complainant got himself admitted to the institute of the O.P i.e. PINNACLE Institute of Engineering & Management (PIEN) in the course of B. Tech(Civil) Engineering for the three years academic session for 2011-2012, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15(number of semester 6(six) under correspondence mode(Distance Education) with a view to achieve higher degree(qualification) to the respective field of Civil Engineering. The complainant had paid requisite/necessary course fees amounting to Rs.1,03,000/- in time including semester fees and admission fees. The complainant had completed his course in final form and also obtained three memorandum of marks from the O.P in printed form for semester-III, IV and V. The complainant was entitled to obtain the Memorandum of marks of the rest three semesters i.e. semester VI, VII and VIII and also the final certificate from the O.P, but the O.P did not supply the memorandum of marks for those rest three semesters and the final certificate in spite of several requests, which has compelled the complainant to file the present case against the O.P praying for relief as per prayer mentioned in the petition of complaint.
The proforma O.P. No. (i) The Rajasthan Vidyapith University (Deemed) is not contesting the case. As such the case has been heard ex parte against them. The O.P. No. I/ Pinnacle Institute of Engineering & Management is contesting the case by filing a Written Version denying all the allegations made against them contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. There is no cause of action for the present case. The specific case of O.P. No. 1 is that the complainant Mr. Pinak Pani Ghosh got himself admitted in the Institution of O.P.No. 1 for obtaining
B. Tech. Degree. The Mark-sheets of three semesters i.e. semester nos. III, IV & V were duly handed over to the complainant. The further case of the O.P. no.1 is that one Jayoshri Das, D/o. Ashim Kr. Das was an employee of O.P. no 1 and she was posted as Centre-in-Charge of the Institution. The complainant fell in love with the said Jayoshri Das and subsequently they also married to each other. The said Jayoshri Das being the legally married wife of the complainant received the mark-sheets of rest three semesters i.e. semester no. VI, VII & VIII and also the final certificate on behalf of the complainant. It can be safely presumed that the said Jayoshri Das handed over the result of those three semesters to her husband i.e. the complainant of the present case. As such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no.1 and they are also not involved in committing unfair trade practice. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Considering the rival pleadings of both the parties, the following points have been framed.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION :-
1) Is the complainant a consumer ?
2) Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer ?
3) Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P no.1 ?
4) Is the O.P. guilty for committing unfair trade business ?
5) Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
6) To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :-
In the instant case neither the complainant, nor the opposite parties adduced any oral evidence. They also did not file any affidavit-in-chief. However, both parties submitted before the Forum to pass the final order/judgment on the basis of the petition of complaint supported by affidavit along with the documents annexed therein and the Written Version supported by affidavit along with the documents annexed therein treating them as their respective evidence on affidavit. Accordingly, as the present case is triable by summary procedure, so we accepted the petition of complaint along with the documents annexed therein and the Written Version along with the documents annexed therein as the respective evidence on affidavit of both the parties. We have also carefully perused the B.N.A filed by both the parties. We have also heard arguments of both sides in full and at length. We have also carefully perused the decision cited on behalf of both parties.
POINT NO.1 :-
It is the admitted fact that complainant got himself admitted to the Institute of the O.P. no. 1 i.e. Pinnacle Institute of Engineering & Management in the course of B. Tech. (Civil) Engineering Exam. in J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed to be) University. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant paid a considerable amount to O.P. No. 1 towards Semester Fees and Admission Fees. It has already been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1135 of 2001( Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital-Vs-Bhupesh Khurana & others) in order dated 13.02.2009. that in the case of the university or an Educational Institute the nature of the activity is, ex-hypothesi, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry ………. Imparting of education by an Educational Institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the Educational Institution. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainant had hired the services of the respondent for consideration. So, they are consumers, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
Thus following the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we must say that as the O.P. No.1 being an Educational Institute and the complainant had hired the services of the O.P. No.1 for consideration i.e. by paying fees, so, the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
This point is thus decided in favour of the complainant.
POINT NO 2:-
Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.1 pointed out that as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, B.Tech degrees through distance education after 2005 are all illegal. So, the Ld. Forum has no authority to direct the O.P. No.1 to hand over the mark-sheets for the academic sessions for 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15. This Ld. Forum has also no authority to direct the O.P.No.1 to hand over B. Tech Engineering certificate to the complainant. As such the present case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
There is no doubt that as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870/2017 (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-Rabi Sankar Patra & others) the B. Tech Degree obtained after 2005 has been treated as cancelled. So, this Forum naturally has no authority to direct the O.P.No.1 to hand over the Mark-sheets and B. Tech Degree certificate for the academic sessions for 2011-2015. But we have already found that the complainant had hired the service of the O.P. No.1 being Consumer. So, we must see whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the complainant or not. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is maintainable.
Accordingly, this point is also decided in favour of the complainant.
POINT NO. 3 :-
It is the admitted fact that on 14.10.2012 the complainant got himself admitted to the institute of the O.P i.e. Pinnacle Institute of Engineering & Management(PIEN) in the course of B. Tech.(Civil) Engineering Exam. for Distance Education under JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith(Deem to be) University at Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan, for the three years’ academic sessions for 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- to the O.P towards admission fees and semester fees. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant completed all the six semesters with stipulated course of period of sessions. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant after completion of his course in final form obtained three memorandum of marks from the O.P in printed form for three semesters i.e. semester nos. III, IV & V, issued by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith. The allegation of the complainant is that the O.P had not delivered the original mark-sheets for the rest three semesters i.e. semester nos. 6,7 and 8 as well as the original B. Tech(Civil) Engineering Degree certificate. On the other hand, the O.P in their W.V. has stated that they handed over the original mark-sheets for the rest three semesters and the final B. Tech. Degree Certificate to the wife of the complainant namely, Jayoshri Das who was at the relevant time an employee of the O.P. The said Jayoshri Das delivered those original mark-sheets and the original Degree certificate to the complainant.
Thus, the O.P. had admitted that they did not hand over the original mark-sheets for the rest three semesters i.e. semester no.VI, VII and VIII and the final B. Tech. Degree certificate to the complainant. The O.P has filed one affidavit of Smt. Jayoshri Ghosh(Das) who has claimed herself as the legally married wife of the complainant. In the said affidavit Smt. Jayoshri Ghosh(Das) has declared on oath that she collected the original mark-sheet of the 8th semester of B. Tech examination of the complainant from the O.P and she also handed over the same to her husband/the complainant of this case. From the copy of the register filed by the O.P, we find that Smt. Jayoshri Ghosh(Das) received the mark-sheet of 8th semester in the name of the complainant by putting her signature on the said register on 6.3.2016. From the said register we also find that the original mark-sheets for the semester nos. 6 and 7 were received by O.P. from Rajasthan Vidyapith, but those were not handed over to anybody. So, it can be safely presumed that those two original mark-sheets are missing from the custody of the O.P due to their negligence. We have already found that the complainant hired the services of the O.P by paying a considerable amount towards semester fees and admission fees. But the complainant has neither received the original mark-sheets for the three semesters i.e. semester nos. 6, 7 and 8 as well as the original certificate of B. Tech. Degree due to the negligence of the O.P, which tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
This point is also decided in favour of the complainant.
POINT NO.4 :-
We have already found that the O.P/Pinnacle Institute of Engineering & Management failed to provide service to the complainant which he had hired by paying a considerable amount to the O.P towards semester fees and admission fees. So, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P, but there is no evidence that they also deprived the other students by this way. So, we do not find any evidence relating to unfair trade practice. As such we are unable to hold that the O.P is guilty for committing unfair trade practice.
This point is thus decided against the complainant.
POINT NOS. 5 AND 6 :-
From the discussions made above and in the light of our observations, we have already found that the O.P is not guilty for committing unfair trade business. However, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. So, the complainant is entitled to get relief. In view of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870/2017(Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-Vs-Rabi Shankar Patro & others) B. Tech. Degree certificates obtained through Distance Education have been treated as cancelled. Naturally, the mark-sheets and the degree certificate of the complainant for the academic sessions for 2011 to 2015 have become illegal and useless. So, we are unable to direct the O.P to declare the examination results of the semester nos. VI, VII and VIII along with the final certificate of B. Tech(Civil) Engineering degree of the complainant and confer the same to the complainant, as prayed for. However, the complainant is entitled to get litigation cost and compensation. We think that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost will be sufficient. It is also known to us that the compensation must be reasonable and logical. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the mental pain, harassment and agony, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss.
These points are thus decided in favour of the complainant.
As a result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D :
that the C.C. No.24 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against Pro-O.P No.(i) and is allowed on contest against the O.P with a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.1 lakh towards compensation. The O.P is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- + Rs.1 lac i.e. Rs.1,05,000/- by Account Payee cheque in the name of the complainant within one month from this day, in default the entire amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. on and from 8.6.2017 till realization and deposit a sum of Rs.100/- per day in the bank account of State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal, from the date of order till realization towards punitive charges/penalty. The complainant will be at liberty to realize the entire awarded amount by putting this order into execution in accordance with law.
Let the original documents, if any, and the extra sets filed by the parties be returned on proper receipt.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost on proper receipt or be sent by speed post in terms of Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.
(Smt.Bina Choudhuri) (Sri S.Sarkar)
Member President,
DCDRF,JALPAIGURI DCDRF,JALPAIGURI
