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

CASE No.  CC/123/2018.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                                   Date of Disposal:

     18.07.18                                 31.07.18                                                   04.04.24

Complainant: Amartya Gupta

                        S/O Late Pranab Gupta, 135/1 Lalit Sen Lane,

                       Saidabad, P.O.Khagra, P.S. Berhampore Town,

                         Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742123

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  Prabir Mukherjee,

                 Prop. Of Sanjog Event Management

                67 A.C. Road,P.O.Khagra,

   P.S. Berhampore Town, Dist. Murshidabad,

     Pin 742123

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Pranab Kr. Das.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party                     : Dibyendu Chatterjee.

Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

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

            One Amartya Gupta (herein after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Prabir Banerjee, Prop. Sanjog Event Management (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

                 The Complainant was looking for his better professional future and career. The OP is running a study centre by name and style ‘Sanjog Event Management’ at Pilkhana Road, Rani Bagan, PS Berhampore, Dist Murshidabad. The OP have categorically and clearly written that his study centre is approved by Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM) and the said University is recognized by University Grant Commission (UGC) and also Distance Education Council (DEC).

                 The OP advertised in various news paper and local TV channel leaflets for admission of MA (Bengali) course of January 2011 to December 2012 and inviting applications for admission for first year of MA (Bengali) course. The OP clearly mentioned that the said study centre is approved by Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM) and the said university is recognized by Distance Education Council (DEC). The OP gave clear impression that EIILM is duly recognized by Distance Education Council(DEC) and giving the degree or diploma in distance mode on completion of the course.

                 The Complainant in bonafide and good faith accepted the information of the OP as an authentic and correct and sought admission in the MA (Bengali) course. The Complainant paid a substantial amount as demanded by the OP under various heads. The Complainant also paid admission fee, tuition fee examination fees. At the time of admission the Complainant was assured by the OP that the Institution would supply the entire necessary books in free of cost.

                 After completion of the 1^st year the Complainant got Mark Sheet delivered by the OP on July, 2012. Thereafter the Complainant took admission for 2^nd year and after completion of the 2^nd year the Complainant got Mark Sheet delivered by OP on May, 2013.

                 The Complainant on 7^th November, 2017 when he was surfing internet he found a web-page i.e. https;//www.consumerforums.in/about-fake-distance-education-degree-of-eiilm-university-sikkim and he came to know 1^st time that the EIILM University has a UGC approved but not DEC approved for any Distance Learning Programme which is running or distributing. Then the Complainant observed all the mark sheet, Admit card carefully and found that the Enrolment No of 1^st year mark sheet is differ from the admit card of 1^st year. Thereafter the Complainant filed applications under RTI Act, 2005 for verifying his mark sheets, admits and other documents and send the same to the official address of EIILM university through Speed post on 12.03.18 but after few days the said application was returned as remarks i.e. ‘Redirected to already closed return to sender.’

                 Thereafter returning the said RTI with the said remarks the Complainant went to the study centre of the OP but the Complainant found that the study centre of the OP is closed. Then the Complainant found a mobile number and contacted with the OP for enquiring the matter i.e. whether the EIILM University was recognized by Distance Education Council and the study centre of the OP is approved by EIILM. But the OP refused to disclose any information about the EIILM University as well as his study centre. The omission and commission and conduct on the part of the OP while making such false representation that the EIILM University was recognized by the Distance Education Council (DEC) and the study centre of the OP is under the EIILM University is amounted to unfair trade practice under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

                 Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this instant case for directing the OP to pay Rs. 30,000/- which is deposited by the Complainant as admission fee and for necessary direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- for professional losses mental agony and for wasting his time for two years and also for directing to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

                 The OP is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable and the Court have not jurisdiction to entertain this application filed by the Complainant.

On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

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

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

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

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1,2 & 3

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. The record shows that no steps was taken by the parties for long period. It is a case of the year 2018. Such being the position we peruse the materials on record for the purpose of final disposal. We find no satisfactory documents in support of the case of the Complainant and as such we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.               

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 18.07.18  and admitted on 31.07.18 . This Commission 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/123/2018 be and the same is  dismissed on contest  against the OP.

        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.