IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/151/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
07.09.17 14.09.17 15.06.23
Complainant: Saddam Hossain
S/o TaserulSeikh
Vill-Bakhorpur,
PO-Khandua, PS-Lalgola
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742148
-Vs-
Opposite Party: ShahnawajAlam
S/o- Sajahan
Residing at Vill- UparJhowbona,
PO- Bansgara, PS- Lalgola
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742148.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Subhanjan Sengupta
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : S.S. Dhar
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………............President.
Sri Nityananda Ray…………………………..............Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Saddam Hossain (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against ShahnawajAlam (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:-
The Complainant is a permanent resident of the address given and he is a student and the OP is a Co-ordinator of Sonar Tari Education Centre as well as he is a Librarian and Guest Lecturer of Lalgola College.
The Complainant is a student and he took admission at Sonar Tari Education Centre on 25.11.14 by depositing Rs. 30,000/- to the OP. The Complainant also deposited different amount on different dates totaling Rs.63,000/- to the OP as per OP’s instruction and the OP acknowledged those amount.
OP assured the Complainant to get admitted in Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana. After two or three months the OP informed the Complainant that as because there were no more seats at Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana so the Complainant fell trough from being admitted. OP also assured to get the Complainant admitted at St. Joseph’s College of Education, Rajhumandry, E.G. District Andhra Pradesh.
OP took all the original educational certificates from the Complainant.
After few months the OP gave a Bonafied Certificate in the name of this Complainant alleged to be issued from St. Joseph’s College of Education, Rajhumandry, E.G. District Andhra Pradesh.
The Complainant went to Andhra Pradesh for his B.Ed Examination in the month of August, 2015. The Complainant had to hire and stay there at a lodge named Shri Ganesh. And the OP supplied all the alleged question papers to the Complainant. OP asked the Complainant that as per rules he should give his examination sitting in the lodge itself and not at the examination centre. The Complainant gave his examination and submitted the question papers and answers sheets to the OP.
In the month of September, 2016 the OP gave this Complainant a Mark Sheet of Andhra University along with a Provisional Certificate vide Regd. No. 214164207089.
Thereafter the Complainant made an application under the Right to Information Act with the Controller of Examination & Public Information Officer of Andhra Pradesh to know the validity of his Registration No. with the Andhra University. And the Complainant was surprised when he got the reply to his query to the effect that his name and the Registration No. were not registered with Andhra University.
Thereafter the Complainant approached for times without number to the OP praying for return of the deposits which was made to the OP but he paid no heed to his cry.
The OP cheated in same manner with many others like this Complainant and a complaint was lodged with Lalgola Police Station and after investigation a criminal case was started against the OP being Lalgola Police Station Case No. 297 of 2017 dt. 18.07.17 under section 418,406,420,471,472 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter the Complainant approached the OP praying for proper redress but in reply the OP behaved very badly with the Complainant and he did not get any help from that end. He prays for relief as per prayer of the Complaint.
Defence Case
OP, ShahnawajAlam is contesting the complaint by filing written version denying all the materials allegations in the complaint stating inter alia that the Complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action arose in favor of the Complainant and against the answering OP in the instant complaint.
It is specifically denied by the OP that the Complainant took admission at Sonar Tari Education Centre to get admitted in Moharshi Dayanand University in Hariyana and the OP informed the Complainant as there was no seat in Moharshi Dayanand University, so he should be admitted SRSR College and the OP arranged the Examination at Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed Examination. The fact that the OP gave the Complainant a Mark Sheet of Andhra Pradesh University along with a Provisional Certificate is not true.
OP is a Part Time Teacher of Lalgola College. OP and some of his friends wanted to get B.Ed Degree. OP came to know that one Study Centre, namely, ‘’Apace Institute of Profession Managemant ‘’(A.I.P.M.) used to help the intending students to get such degree.
OP stated that he and his friends met with Sudip Maity and Kakali Mjumder who used to run the above Study Centre. OP took admission for 2014-15 session after payment of Rs.70,000/- only which were paid by installments. His friends also paid some amount. Some payments were made directly and some payments have been paid through Account Transfer. Some transfer was made to the Savings Bank Account of Sudip Maity and Kakali Majumder and some amount was sent to Krisha Education Centre as per direction of Sudip Maity.
It is submitted by the OP that Rabi Sankar Paira and Swapan Mondal were the paid staffs of ‘’Apace Institute of Profession Managemant ‘’(A.I.P.M.). Sudip Maity and Kakali Majumder assured the OP that he would get the Degree on the last part of 2015 or first part of 2016.
Knowing the fact of Admission of this OP, many students intended to get admitted in ‘’Apace Institute of Profession Managemant ‘’(A.I.P.M.). Sudip Maity came to Lalgola to meet with the intending students. OP is attached to an Education Centre, namely, ‘’Sonar Tari Education Centre’’ for tuition of the students from class XI to M.A. Sudip Maity came to Sonar Tari Education Centre to meet with the intending students who wants to get B.Ed Degree. All the students were convinced and OP and the others were confirmed that they would get Degree of B.Ed from Andhra University.
OP stated that at the time of meeting it was settled that the intending students would pay the requisite amount to Sonar Tari Education Centre, who would send the amount to Sudip Maity, Kakali Majumder or to other persons as per direction of Sudip Maity.
Thereafter, the Complainant paid the amount to Sonar Tari Edication Centre which has been received not only by this OP but also by Sirajam Mandir. OP sent this entire amount along with the amounts collected from the other students to the Account of Sudip Maity and Kakali Majumder or to the Account of Krishna Education Centre, Swapan Mondal, Rabi Sankar Paira.
OP further stated that Sudip Maity, Kakali Majumder, Krishna Education Cenre, Swapan Mondal, Rabi Sankar Paira are the necessary parties of the Complainant. So the case is bad for defect of parties.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Whether the Complaints Case is bad for defect of parties?
4. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
5. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Today is fixed for further hearing of argument. Heard argument of both sides.
The fact and circumstances of the case suggests that it is a clear case of cheating and forgery, etc.
The material on record further reveals that the specific case i.e., Lalgola P.S. Case No. 297/17 dated 18.07.2017 Under Section 418/406/420/471/472 I.P.C. have already been registered.
We perused the petition of complainant, evidence supported by affidavit and the notes of arguments filed by the complainant. Similarly, we perused the Written Version by the O.P., evidence by way of the affidavit on behalf of the O.P.
The complainant has stated in his complaint that the acts of the O.P. all over prove his intention to commit and perpetuate fraud practice.
We perused the Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 we find that service means the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing etc. But there is no mentioned of the word “education”. So the “education” cannot be subject matter of service.
For the argument sake that education is the subject matter of service then the question arises whether the O.P. is the service provider of education. There is no averment in the documents submitted by the complainant that the O.P. is the authorized agent of any university. Such being the position the O.P. cannot be said to be the service provider of education.
In Maria Franics v. Reverend Father R. Ratchagar, [(1994) 2 CPJ 108 (NC)], the State Commission has observed that criminal complaint is exclusively triable by the Criminal Courts and the Consumer Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [now the Consumer Protection Act, 2019] will have no jurisdiction. It was held that it is not a consumer dispute.”
Ld. Adv. for the Complainant cited a decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [HCMI Education Vs. Narendra pal Singh; date of decision : 30.05.2013 : Citation : 2013 Lawsuit (CO) 549].
We peruse the said decision. In the said decision OP No.1 made assessment of complaint\ respondents educational qualification for eligibility get admission for MBBS Course, in OP No.2 College. In the said decision both the OPs were rightly jointly and severally held liable to refund the fee, deposited by the Complainant. It is obvious that OP No. 1 was the authorized agent of OP No.2.
But in the instant case it is required to be mentioned that the OP Coordinator of Sonar Tari Education Centre is not the authorized agent of any university and as such the decision cited by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant has no application in the instant case. We have already mentioned that it is a clear case of cheating, forgery etc. and for which FIR has already been registered.
In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that instant complaint case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 07.09.17 and admitted on 14.09.17. This Commission 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 instant complaint case No. CC/151/2017 be and same is dismissed on contest but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
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.
President
Member President.
