Orissa

Rayagada

CC/64/2018

Sasmita Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Santosh Kumar Dash - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Pradeep Ku Dash

03 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 64 / 2018.                                Date.  3   .  12 . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Smt. Sasmita  Kumari Rath,  D/O; Sri K.Ch.Rath, Dera Street, At: Dera Street,  Po:Gunupur,Dist: .Rayagada,  State:  Odisha. Pin No. 765 022                                   …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.Sri Santosh  Kumar Dash, Proprietor, Computer Research and application centre Pvt.  Ltd.,(CRAC),  N-1/282, IRC  Village, Nayapalli,Bhubaneswar-15 (Odisha).                           

2.The  Chief Funcioner/Director, Computer Research and application centre Pvt.  Ltd.,(CRAC),  N-1/282, IRC  Village, Nayapalli,Bhubaneswar-15 (Odisha              .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri Pradeep Kumar Das,  Advocate, Rayagada..

For the O.Ps :- Sri Bibhu Dutta Sahoo,  Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

.                                         J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non issuance of  B.Ed course for the year 2014-15 final Degree    and  Provisional  certificates  inter alia  Mark sheet..  The brief facts of the case  has summarized here under.

          That the complainant had joined as student under  O.P.No.2  for the course of B.Ed for  the year 2012 and completed the course  during the year 2014-2015.  As per the  instruction the O.Ps the complainant had deposited all the fees a sum of Rs.72,400/- in different dates through on line bank transfer which are mentioned here under:-

Date

Amount  had sent through bank transfer to the  account of the  O.Ps.

1.

2.

7.9.2012

Rs.5,000/-

6.10.2012.

Rs.25,000/-

9.1.2013

Rs.20,000/-

28.2.2013.

Rs.7,500/-

7.10.2015

Rs.6,300/-

7.10.2015

Rs.9,600/-

 

Out of the above  at the   centre hard cash  Rs.15,000/- had  paid  on dt.13.12.2015 to the O.Ps  by the complainant.  The complainant had  deposited  total amount a sum of  Rs. 72,400/-  in turn  the O.Ps have issued  receipt  for Rs.65,000/-  only. But till date the O.Ps have not issued  certificates  in favour of the  complainant in spite  repeated  contact over phone and  in person. Hence this  C.C. case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to issue B.Ed certificates in favour of the complainant  or to return entire amount  received with interest and  compensation.

On being noticed the  O.P. No.2 appeared  through their learned counsel and filed written version  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint.. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Further the O.P. No.2  submitted that Computer Research and application centre Pvt.  Ltd., has been  incorporated  under the  companies Act,1956 and the company is limited. Therefore there will be no Proprietor. Hence the O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

 

The O.Ps  appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from  the O.Ps   and complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed by both  the parties. 

                Both the parties  have  vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

 

          FINDINGS.

                On perusal of the record  we observed  there is no dispute  that the complainant had appeared  examination  i.e. B.Ed course  during  the year 2014-2015  under the supervision of the O.Ps .   Again it is revealed  there is no dispute that the  O.P.  had  issued  2 Nos. of  money  receipt  No. 1531  DT.6.10.2012 for Rs.20,0000/- and Receipt No. 1555 Dt. 12.01.2013 for Rs.45,000/-(copies of the money receipt  is in the file which are marked as Annexure- I & 2.  Further the  complainant had deposited the amounts through bank transfer to the accounts of the O.P( copies of the bank  folios  are in the file  which are marked as  Annexure-3 to 8).    

On  perusal of the written version  filed  by the  O.Ps  it is revealed that   the  O.Ps. have  not  taken any serious  steps  for issue of original certificates in favour of the  complainant which is  negligence  and deficiency in service  on the part of the O.Ps.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2011(2) page No. 94 (National Commission) and reported  in  OLR(CSR) 2005(1) State commission, Cuttack  page  No. 71  where in the commissions  observed  “that Educational institution  imparting  of education  for consideration  falls within the  ambit of service as defined in the Act.  A student who takes admission in the educational institution hires  the service of the educational institution for consideration,  he is a consumer as defined under the Act.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

The O.P  No.2 in their written version contended that  the complainant had paid Rs.65,000/-  towards B.Ed course and  we had issued money receipt. Other than this amount we had not taken any amount towards any  purpose from her. Further  the O.P. No.2 contended  that  the complainant had appeared the examination but due to unsuccessful  in examination the Mark Sheet and Certificate could not be issued by the  University. As our staff had  assured for  sure success during the counseling  (though  we had not given any  written commitment, but we are accepting fact  now also). However  the O.P. is  agree to refund the admission fees i.e. Rs.65,000/- on installment basis.

In the present case this forum observed  the  complainant  was enrolled for B.Ed degree through distance education course of the O.Ps and paid all requisite fees. He attended contact programme as required  for the said  degree certificate  and appeared for the examination held by the O.P.  Further  it was true  that the O.Ps have allowed the  complainant to write the above examination. However, the complainant has not   received the  above certificate  from the O.Ps inspite of repeated  personal approach and  over phone call to the O.Ps. Therefore  she filed complaint C.C.case before the  forum.  The  District consumer  forum  is  of the view that the complainant is  a consumer because  the complainant had fulfilled the requirements since she  had appeared for examination during  the year 2014-2015  and also attended seminars and paid consideration. Therefore,  the complainant  is entitled  the B.Ed certificate, if  she was qualified for the same.

The  O.Ps in their written version  vehemently argued there is a barred of limitation in the present in hand.  The complainant has not received the  above certificate from the  O.Ps  in the present  till date and  the O.Ps have also   admitted in their  written. Hence there is  continue cause of action  till receipt of  certificate from the  O.Ps by the  complainant.  So the plea taken by the O.Ps regarding  barred of limitation  is rejected.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                               

 

 

ORDER.

            In  resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed  in part  against the O.Ps.

                The O.Ps are ordered to issue  mark sheet and B.Ed Certificate,  if the complainant  was qualified for the  same besides to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of  litigation.

         

The OPs ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  3(three)months   from the  date of  receipt  of this order   failing which   refund  the fees deposited by the complainant a sum of Rs.72,400/- with interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of respective  deposit till realization     .

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this            3rd.   Day of   December,   2018.

 

 Member.                                                              Member.                                                               President

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.