Sasmita Kumar Rath filed a consumer case on 03 Dec 2018 against Santosh Kumar Dash in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/64/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Mar 2019.
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 | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.