IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/111/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
19.06.18 16.07.18 09.07.19
Complainant: Ujjwal Kanti De (Father Of Puja De)
S/o Sudhakar De
Kandi School Road
PO&PS-Kandi, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin=742137
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Principal, Berhampore Girls’ College
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : In person
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party :Subhanjan Sengupta
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Ujjwal Kanti De (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case with the approval of his daughter Puja De against the Principal, Berhampore Girls’ College (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
One Puja De got herself admitted in the Berhampore Girls’ College on 22.06.17 with honours in Environment Science and paid Rs. 16,770/- for her admission in college and hostel. Subsequently, she got a scope for admission in Viswabharati University and admitted there on 06.07.17. On 09.08.17, the Complainant filed an application to the OP requesting her to refund admission fees for college and hostel. But the OP gave no response. As a result, Puja De lodged a complaint with the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice , Murshidabad on 18.10.17 and ultimately the OP gave an account payee cheque amounting Rs.6,093/- to Puja De but the OP did not refund Rs. 10,000/- i.e. the hostel admission fee. Hence, the Complainant prayed for refund of hostel admission charge of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- against the OP.
The OP contested the case by filing written version dated 20.11.18 contending that the case is not maintainable and the OP has no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It is the specific case of the OP that Puja De was admitted and she gave her choice for hostel accommodation. Puja De expressed her eagerness of not availing the seat after the completion of entire admission process. As a result, the allotted seat remained vacant for the entire session without any scope of further allotment to any student. The OP is not at fault. Hence, the complaint case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant case maintainable ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Complainant submits that his daughter Puja De got herself admitted and she authorised the Complainant to file the case. He submits that there is consumer dispute between the Complainant and the O.P. and the complainant hired the services of the O.P.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that Educational Institutions do not provide any kind of service, therefore in matter of admission, fee etc.,there cannot be any deficiency of service. that Educational Institutions do not provide any kind of service, therefore in matter of admission, fee etc.,there cannot be any deficiency of service.
Having gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and the documents, we find that Puja De got herself admitted in Berhampore Girls’ College and she authorised her father, the Present Complainant to lodge the complaint as the O.P. did not refund her hostel admission charge. Admittedly, the O.P. is an educational Institution. The Complainant has filed the case as the O.P. did not refund Hostel deposit of her daughter. In this respect , we have relied on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission dated 09.05.19 reported in 2019 (2)CPR 851 (NC) wherein it is held that in a matter alleging deficiencies in the education imparted to the students, a consumer Forum would not be an appropriate Forum and the remedy available to the aggrieved person would be to approach a civil court for the redressal of his grievances and complainant would also be entitled to seek benefit of the provisions contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Hon’ble National Commission relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjit Kaur, 2010(11)SCC119 wherein it is observed that Education is not a commodity. Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore in matter of admission, fee etc.,there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act, 1986.
With due regard to the said decision , we hold that the Consumer complainant is not maintainable.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Complainant submits that his daughter Puja De filed a complaint to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice and the OP paid a sum of Rs.6,093/- to Puja by a A/C Payee cheque. But the OP did not refund the hostel admission fee amounting Rs.10,000/- deposited by his daughter on 22.06.17 vide receipt No. 2723. It is urged that the OP has deficiency of service and the OP may be directed to refund the said amount of Rs.10,000/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that Puja De has not applied for refund of admission fee of hostel. It is argued that the Governing Body of Berhampore Girls’ College took resolution on 07.12.11 regarding refund rule of cancellation of hostel seats. He draws our attention to the rules and regulations followed by hostel boarders of Berhampore Girls’ College. It is urged that Puja De is entitled to get refund of 50% of establishment charge as her period of stay was less than six months as per rule 7 of the rules and regulations of Berhampore Girls’ College.
It is contended that Puja De paid Rs.9,600/- as establishment charge but she never applied for refund of 50% of establishment charge as per rules. He submits that the OP has no deficiency in service.
We have considered the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant, written argument of the OP and documents filed by both sides. Admittedly, Puja De admitted herself in Berhampore Girls’ College on 22.06.17 and paid Rs.16,770/- for her admission in college and hostel.
Admittedly, the OP refunded a sum of Rs.6,093/- to Puja De by an A/C Payee cheque. On going through the proceedings of the meeting of Governing Body of Berhampore Girls’ College dated 07.12.11 and refund rules of cancellation of hostel seats , we find that Puja De is entitled to get refund of 50% of establishment charge as her period of stay in hostel was less than six months. It is the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the OP that the OP had no scope to refund 50% of establishment charge to Puja De as Puja De had not applied for refund of establishment charge.
We find that the Complainant, father of Puja De applied for refund of admission fee for college and hostel of his daughter but the OP had not even advised him to file proper application of refund of establishment charge for cancellation of hostel seats.
We have already held that the case is not maintainable. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 19.06.18 and admitted on 16.07.18. This Forum 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/111/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.
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.
Member
Member President.
