Date of Filing: 19/11/2013 Date of Final Order: 28/05/2015
The complainant Sri Tapan Kumar Barman has filed the present case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay compensation for deficiency in service of the O.Ps with cost amounting to Rs.58,500 /- in total and other relief(s) as the Forum may deem feet and proper.
The factual matrix of the case as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant took admission in the Bengal Suggestion Center, Cooch Behar Branch for obtaining the B.P.Ed. Degree from Nagpur University. The Complainant duly paid the admission fees of Rs. 18,000/- for the same. After that the Complainant went Dada Saheb Dibekar of Physical Education at Akola, from where he came to know that the conducting branch made his admission at Amarabati University in lieu of Nagpur University. The Complainant being astonished did not avail the course due to violating the condition by the O.P. No. 1. It is the case of the Complainant that at the time of admission the Complainant submitted all the original documents as to his Educational qualification, Cast Certificate, Madhyamik Admit Card etc. to the O.P. but when he wanted to get return the same, the O.P demanded Rs. 4,000/- and after payment of said amount he received some original documents from the O.P and demanded more Rs.23,000/- to give return of the rest documents and ultimately received the said documents on 19/04/2013. To get relief from the anxiety the Complainant move to the A/D, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices on 26/07/2013 but even after fixation three dates for settlement the O.P did not appear and the settlement failed. Due to negligence of the O.P the Complainant suffered huge mental pain and agonies also pecuniary loss that be termed as deficiency in service. Thus, the present case filed by the Complainant seeking redress and relief(s).
By receiving the notice from this Forum the O.P. No. 1 through Ld. Agent entered and by filing Written Version contested the case contending inter-alia that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum also this case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner did not make the Nagpur University, The Amarabati University and Dada Saheb Dewakar College of Physical Education as necessary parties. This O.P further contended that the Complainant filed the present case by suppressing the material facts only for illegal gain. The O.P served a legal notice to the Complainant demanding to pay-off remaining due amount of Rs. 18,000/- from him. The said notice received by the Complainant on 14/09/2013 but in the complaint there is no whispering about this matter. Further, all the certificates of the Complainant returned back to him on 19/08/2013 as per his demand thus the Complainant files a vague and false allegation against the O.P. Ultimately, this O.P has prayed for dismissal of the case.
In the instant case the main allegation of the Complainant against the O.P. No. 1. Besides, the O.P. No. 1 to bring the truth before this Forum prayed for adding party which was allowed vide order No. 9 dated 24.03.2014. Accordingly, the O.P. No. 2, 3&4 have been added as necessary parties.
In its turn the O.P. No. 2 filed a Written Version through Speed Post but none appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 before this Forum for which this case proceeded with Ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2.
The O.P. No. 3 contested the case after vacating the ex-parte order, contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable against this O.P as this O.P in no way related with the facts of the case. The fact is that the Complainant took admission in Dada Saheb Divakar College of Physical Education at Akola under Amaravati University, bearing Roll No. 17616, Centre No. 201. The Complainant appeared in Practical Examination but not in Theoretical Examination and thus, he was detained in the examination. This O.P further contended that the Complainant never raised any allegation against the College/ University Authority during his session thus, this complaint before this Forum is false and fabricated. By denying the story of non-returning the documents this O.P also averred that the Complainant never submitted any objection to the College Authority that he was mislead by the O.P. No. 1 and it is fact that the Complainant willingly took admission in the said college after observing all the formalities. Putting the above contentions this O.P. prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The O.P. No. 4 did not appear before this Forum despite receiving the notice as such this forum hold Ex-Parte against this O.P.
The Complainant and the contesting Opposite Parties have filed Evidence On affidavit. Considering the same it appears that there is no new point for discussion.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainants and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
The Complainant intended to obtain B.P.Ed. Course deposited a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the O.P. No. 1. The O.P. No. 1 issued a money receipt in favour of the Complainant with an assurance to provide service as to the course of B.P.Ed. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps as came to be established, we are in considered opinion that the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps.
Point No.2.
The O.P No. 1 of this case has Branch office at Cooch Behar town and total valuation of this case is Rs.58,500/- which is far less than Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant with a desire to take admission in the Nagpur University contacted with the O.P. No. 1 paid him certain amount but the opposite Party admitted him in Amarabati University which as per complaint is deficiency in service.
Evidently, the Complainant for taking admission in the Nagpur University deposited Rs. 18,000/- to the O.P. No. 1. The O.P. No. 1 being the Franchisee of Distance Education Course received the admission fee and issued a Provisional Money Receipt.
Evidently, the Complainant is /was a student of College of Physical Education, Akola under Amaravati University.
Annexure “C” reveals that the O.P. No. 1 issued a letter to the Manager, Union Bank, Cooch Behar Branch for issuing ATM Card in favour of the Complainant as he took admission in B.P Ed. Course under Nagpur University.
Thus, it is clear from the documents made available in the record it reveals that the O.P. No. 1 received admission fees from the Complainant for admission in the Nagpur University but ultimately that admission was in the Amravati University though the Complainant admitted in the B. P. Ed. Course he intended to.
The Complainant alleged that due to breach of promise he did not complete the said course in question but from Annexure “E” it is clear that the Complainant completed the said examination but failed. It appears from the record that initially the Complainant intending to take admission in Nagpur University for B.P.Ed. Course contacted with the O.P. No. 1. Thereafter he opined to take admission in Dada Saheb Diwakar College of Physical Education that is under Amaravati University. Accordingly, the O.P. No. 1 admitted the Complainant in the Amaravati University as per his desire with another three students. It also appears that the Complainant himself went to Dada Saheb College of Physical Education, Akola accompanied with three students for admission. On perusal the Written Version and Evidence on affidavit of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3, it appears that the Complainant started his study in the said college bearing Roll No. 17616, Centre No. 201 and also appeared in the Practical Examination but remain absent in written examination and secured only 197 marks thus, failed.
It is crystal clear from the record that the Complainant took admission through the O.P. No. 1 entered in the examination but ultimately failed that does not means that he did not continue his study.
So, the present claim of the Complainant is barred by principle of estopel as he took admission in Amaravati University and continued his study.
The Complainant by suppressing the material fact has filed the present case. The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party demanded Rs. 4000/- for returning the documents and further demanded 23,000/- for he said course. Though Annexure 1 filed by the O.P. No. 1 reveals that the O.P. No. 1 sent a legal notice to the Complainant demanding the rest amount of Rs. 18,000/- as to the course fee as the Complainant already paid 22,000/- out of Rs. 40,000/-. The Complainant received the same but did not pay any heed to it. Thus, it is clear that the Complainant presented his claim before this Forum by suppressing the real fact and did not come before this Forum in clean hand. Moreover, the Complainant alleged that the Amaravati University issued a false Mark sheet in favour of the Complainant though the Complainant failed to prove his allegation also we are not in a position to believe that a reputed University can issue a false Mark Sheet. Entire documents proved that the Complainant took admission in the Amaravati University, continued his study but not success due to his own latches.
Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion and the materials to its entirety we are not in a position to hold that the Opposite Parties have deficiency in service.
The point No 3 is decided against the Complainant for which the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Thus, the complaint fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present complaint case No. 141/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No. 1&3 also dismissed against the O.P. No. 2&4 in Ex-parte.
No order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
