Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/640/2011

Rohit Kumar S/o Prem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ram Institute of Business & Mangement - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Khurana

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint  No. 640 of 2011

                                                                                    Date of institution: 14.06.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 27.02.2017.

Rohit Kumar aged  about 24 years son of Sh. Prem Chand, resident of H. No. 155, Harbans Pura Colony, Near I.T.I. Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                           

     …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Shree Ram Institute of Business & Management/ Shree Ram Institute of Engineering & Technology Village Urjani, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Principal/ Director.

                                                                                                …Respondent.                                      

 

BEFORE:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:    Sh. Naresh Khurana, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                 Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying therein that respondent (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP Institute) be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 31,025/- to the complainant taken as fee and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant was doing diploma in Production Engineering and during the continuation of said diploma in the month of July/August 2010, two officials of the OP Institute namely Lakhwinder Singh & Ashwani Kumar approached the complainant and induced him to take admission in the OP Institute i.e. Shree Ram Institute of Business & Management. The said lakhwinder & Ashwani Kumar asked the complainant that on the basis of said diploma, the complainant will be eligible to get admission in the 2nd year of B. Tech. On the quarry made by the complainant, the said Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar assured the complainant that even if the complainant fails to pass the diploma and gets supplementary in the said diploma even then the complainant is eligible for the admission in B.Tech 2nd year and the complainant can submit his pass certificate of diploma by December, 2010. The OP Institute also advertised through various modes about various educational course and made several false assurances in their advertisement and thereby induced the public to get admission in their institution. Being attracted by the advertisements of the OP Institute and inducement given by the said official, the complainant visited the institute of OP Institute and made enquiry about the B.Tech (Mechanical Course) offered by the OP. In the meantime, the result of the diploma course of the complainant was declared and complainant got supplementary in the said diploma and the complainant was unsuccessful in diploma course. The complainant again met with Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar and other officials of OPs and they repeated the assurance that he is eligible to get admission in 2nd year of B.Tech and the complainant need not to worry and the complainant can submit his pass certificate of diploma by December, 2010 prior to the examination. Believing upon the false assurance of official of OP institute, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the OP and the official of OP asked the complainant to attend the classes of B.Tech (Mechanical) 2nd year and assuring him that now he is student of B.Tech (Mechanic) 2nd year. To the utmost surprise of the complainant when in February, 2011 the complainant came to know that in fact, he is not student of Institute and the official of institute are just making him fool only for their monetary benefits. In fact the complainant was not eligible for admission in 2nd year of B.Tech (Mechanical) until he passed in diploma of production Management. Thereafter, the complainant met with the Principal & Director of Institute and made a complaint regarding the cheating made to him and requested to refund the fee and compensate him for the loss suffered by him but they put off the matter on one pretest or the other and ultimately refused to pay the same. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Institute appeared through Sh. Parmod Gupta Advocate and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complicated question of law and fact is involved in this case, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable; no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP; the present complaint is false and frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed and on merit it has been stated that the complainant was neither a student of the OP Institute as alleged nor there were any agent/officials of the Op namely Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar. As per guidelines and law, a student cannot take admission in B.Tech 2nd year until and unless he is eligible for the same and eligibility is that he should be clear in the diploma, only then he can take admission in B. Tech 2nd year and as per pleadings of complainant he was having compartment, so, he was not able to take admission in B.Tech 2nd year. Moreover, there was no Production trade in the OP Institute so the contention raised by the complainant in the complaint that he was doing diploma in Production Engineering is totally false. The complainant never paid even a single penny to the OP Institute. Had it been so then certainly the same would have been entered into the account books of the OP and it seems that the in connivance with the alleged Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar, the complainant made some forged receipts in the name of College by using the scanner or other electronic process etc. and has filed this false complaint just to black mail the OP Institute and further he has never attended any class of the institute as alleged. The receipts, if any, are forged and fraudulent documents and cannot be taken into consideration. The routine practice is that he should have come to the office of the OP Institute at Urjani and should have deposited money at the cashier’s counter and should have taken the receipt from the cashier of the institute. So, the contention raised by the complainant is totally false and he has created a false and fabricated story in connivance with the alleged Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of receipt No. 8246 dated Nil for Rs. 15000/- of Shree Ram Institute of Business & Management as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipt No. 5235 dated 17.09.2010 for Rs. 1025/- as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of computerized receipt voucher of Rs. 10,000/- as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of identity card of Rohit Kumar issued by Shree Ram Institutions as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of Bus Pass of Rohit Kumar issued by Shree Ram Institutions as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, OP Institute failed to adduce any evidence despite availing so many opportunities with costs, hence its evidence was closed by court order on dated 23.02.2017.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

 7.                    The only version of the complainant is that the respondent alongwith Shri Lakhwinder Singh and Shri Ashwani Kumar asked the complainant by cheating that on the basis of Diploma in Production Engineer, the complainant is eligible to get admission in the 2nd year of B.Tech and made false assurance to the complainant that if he fails to pass the diploma and gets supplementary in the said Diploma even then the complainant is eligible for admission in B.Tech, 2nd year and believing upon the assurance given by the said Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar complainant paid a sum of Rs.30000/- besides of Rs.1025/- as examination fee is not tenable as the complainant has totally failed to prove that he ever attended the class of the OP Institute. In support of his case complainant has placed on file some photocopies of receipts amounting Rs.15000/- (Annexure C-2) and another computer generated receipt of Rs.10000/- (Annexure C-3), photocopy of identity card and Bus pass but these receipts are neither duly proved by the complainant nor any witness has been examined from the Op Institute to prove the same.

8.                     Whereas on the other hand as per the version of the OPs Institute the complainant was never a student of the OP institute as alleged nor there was any agent or official of the OPs Institute namely Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar as alleged in the complaint. Further, it has been mentioned on behalf of OPs that as per guidelines of the OP Institute, the student cannot take admission in B.Tech 2nd year until and unless he is eligible for the same and eligibility is that he should be a clear in all Diploma, only then he can take admission in the B.Tech Second Year and as per pleading of the complainant he was having compartment, so he was not able to take admission in the second year of B.Tech. Further it has been mentioned by the OP Institute that even there was no production trade in the OP Institute, so also the contentions raised by the complainant is totally false. Further it has been also mentioned in para No.7 of the Written Statement that complainant never paid a single penny to the OP institute and it seems that the complainant in connivance with the alleged Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar, made some forged receipts in the name of the college by using a scanner or other electronic process and filed this false complaint just to blackmail the OP Institute. Learned counsel for the OP referred the case law titled as “M/s Reliance Industries Limited Versus United India Assurance Company Limited 1997(2) CPF, Page No.167”, National Commission, in which it has been held that the question of fraud, cheating and conspiracy involved in issues between the parties and matter is required through scrutiny including examination of documents supporting oral evidence. Complaint dismissed as this case should be dealt with by the competent Civil Court. Further learned counsel for the OPs further referred the case law titled as “N. Shivaji Rao Vs. M/s Daman Motor Company 1993(1) CPJ 88”, wherein also the same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble National Commission. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the above noted facts of the case law, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, as from the perusal of the pleadings it is clear that complainant has himself mentioned in his compliant that Shri Lakhwinder Singh and Shri Ashwani Kumar alleged agent of the OP Institute have made cheating to him. Further as per version of the OPs, the complainant never paid a single penny to the OP Institute and it seems that the receipts has been falsely prepared in connivance with the said Lakhwinder Singh and Ashwani Kumar in the name of OP Institute just to blackmail, so the matter involves in the present complaint is complicated in nature which required elaborate evidence oral as well as documentary. Further as per case law titled as “Bihar School Examination Board Versus Suresh Parshad Sinha, 2009, CTJ, Page 1057”, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the function of the education board is to conduct examination. This statutory function involves holding examinations, evaluating answer sheet, declaring results and issuing certificate. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. The School Board is not a service provider and the student who takes examination conducted by it is not a consumer and consequently, his complaint under Consumer Protection Act, will not be maintainable against it.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and going through the above referred law, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby “dismissed”  with liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583 Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 27.02.2017.

 

                              (S.C.SHARMA)                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                              MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                                  DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

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.