DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………….
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 14th day of March 2018.
C.C.No. 48 of 2017.
Dwaipayana Pradhan, age-41 years son of late Prasanna Kumar Pradhan,
Resident of Birat Kani, P.O.Kandhkel Gaon, Via-Degaon, Dist-Bolangir.
.. .. .. .. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
Principal, Balaji Institute of Science, Sambalpur Road.
Bolangir, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. .. .. .. Opp.Party.
Adv. for the Complainant-Sri D.Hotya,L.Hota & M.R.Gadtya.
Adv. for the O.P -Sri R.N.Bohidar & Associates.
Date of filing of the case-25.09.2017
Date of order -14.03.2018
ORDER.
Sri A.K.Purohit,President.
Aparna Padhan is the daughter and Anjali Padhan is the niece of the complainant and representing both the girl students the complainant has preferred this case alleging deficiency in service against the O.P. Both Aparna Padhan and Anjali Padhan admitted in +2 first year Science in the O.P’s institute in the year 2016-17. After completion of the 1st year being dissatisfied with the teaching of the institute, both the girl students want to change the institute and after obtaining no objection certificate from the O.P, they have applied for permission to the council of higher education which was allowed by the authority. After obtaining permission the students have applied to another college through on-line process which is available for seven days only. Accordingly the students have requested the O.P for issuance of the C.L.C, but the O.P denied the same. Hence the complaint.
2. The O.P contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P has denied the complainant’s allegations and submitted that, there are outstanding dues against both the students and suppressing the fact the complainant has filed a frivolous case and is liable u/s.26 of the C.P.Act.
3. Heard both the parties. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, since the students have paid the academic fees they are entitled to their C.L.C. when they want to change the institute and denied of the same amounts to deficiency in service. On the other had the learned advocate for the O.P submitted that suppressing the facts relating to outstanding dues, the complainant has preferred this case and has not come to the forum with clean hand. Further it is submitted by the O.P that the complainant is not a consumer, since he has not added the students as party and the complainant has no right to represent Anjali Sahu. Hence the case is not maintainable.
4. Law is well settled that, imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration is a service. The fees paid by the complainant is for the services rendered by the O.P by way of imparting education. In the present case both the students are minors and both are having same cause of action. Aparna Padhan is the daughter of the complainant and Anjali Sahu is the niece of the complainant and the complainant has paid academic fees for both the students. Hence the complainant can maintained the case in it’s representative capacity for the interest of both the students u/s. 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act.
5. It is seen from the money receipt No.200 dt. 18.09.2017, and No.199 dt.18.09.2017 issued by the O.P that, both the students have paid Rs 60,000/- each towards academic fees. It is also evident from the letter issued by the Deputy Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Odisha, that, both the students have allowed to transfer of students from one college to another. In his complaint petition the complainant has pleaded that, the aforesaid permission was obtained with the no objection certificate issued by the O.P. This pleading has not been specifically denied by the O.P in his written version and simply averred that, there was outstanding dues against both the O.Ps. If there was any outstanding dues the O.P should not have issued no objection certificate for obtaining the permission from council of Higher Education. Further whether there was any outstanding dues against students I s a matter of fact which requires details examination of documents and witnesses which is not possible in a summery procedure. The O.P is at liberty to approach the regular court of law for recovery of his outstanding dues against the students, if so advised.
6. Therefore with these material available on record, it is concluded that, non issuance of C.L.C. after receiv8ng the academic fees amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. It is an admitted fact that in compliance with the interim order passed by this Forum dated 25.09.2017, the O.P has already issued the C.L.C and the complainant has received the same for both the girl students. Hence it is not necessary to issue any further direction regarding issue of Transfer Certificate. It is seen from the complaint petition that, as per the digitization of office arrangement a student has to apply for admission through online process and under the process the admission portal is available for only seven days. Therefore after obtaining permission from the council the students are hurried for their C.L.C. for applying through one line process and for this the complainant has been sufficiently harassed and suffered mental agony when the same has been denied by the O.P and hence the complainant is entitled to compensation.
7. Now coming to the petition dated 27.11.2017, filed by the O.P u/s.26 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is seen that, the petition has been preferred on the ground of outstanding dues against the students. The complainant has not filed any objection to the petition dated 27.11.2017 filed by the O.P. On a bare reading of Sec.26 of the Consumer Protection Act, it provides for dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints. In the present case there is denial of C.L.C by the O.P. After receiving academic fees, refusal to issue C.L.C. gives rise to a cause of action for filing the case. Hence when there is cause of action for filing a consumer complaint and imparting education for consideration is a service under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, it can not be said that the complaint petition is vexatious or frivolous. Non issuance of C.L.C. by the O.P in favour of the girl students is not a small matter and there is seriousness in the cause of action of this complaint petition. On the other hand, filing this petition on the ground of out-standing dues against the students can not to be maintainable in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 26 of the C.P.Act. Hence the petition dt.27.11.2017 filed by the O.P. u/s.26 of the Consumer Protection Act is rejected.
8. With these facts & circumstances and material available on record the complainant is allowed to cost & compensation.
Hence ordered;
The O.P is directed to pay Rs 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand ) only to the complainant towards cost and compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Order pronounced in open Forum this the 14th day of March 2018.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
