West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/130/2016

Debasisi Samanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sk. Mujibar Rahaman - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.130/2016

 

Debasish Samanta, S/o-Gayaprasad Samanta, Subhasnagar,

P.O. & P.S.-Midnapur,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

Sk. Mujibar Rahaman, S/o-Sk. Md. Golam Sojud, Prop. of  Institute for Higher Studies & Research  Foundation of Pathanmahallah, Madrasha Campus, Midnapore Town, P.O. & P.S.-Midnapore, District Paschim Medinipur.………....…Opposite. Party.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Subrata Das, Advocate.

 For the O.P.             :       

 

Decided on: - 26/04/2017

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – The instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by Sri Debasish Samanta alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.-Sk. Mujibar Rahaman, proprietor of Institute for Higher Studies & Research  Foundation.

                  Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had been to the office of the O.P. in the month of march, 2013 and had a discussion with him regarding getting his name registered in Ph.D. (in Botany) under Sainath University, Jharkhand. It is stated by the complainant that course fees including registration charges was agreed at Rs.90,000/-

Contd………..P/2

                                         

( 2 )

and  the complainant had paid Rs.80,000/- out of the same in four installments i.e. Rs.20,000/- on 17/03/2013, Rs.20,000/- on  20/07/2013, Rs.20,000/- on 06/09/2014 and Rs.20,000/- on 31/01/2015.

                  It is the specific allegation of the complainant that inspite of receiving the said hefty amount of Rs.80,000/- the O.P. did nothing to get his name registered in Ph.D. Course under Sainth University. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for directing upon the O.P. to refund Rs.80,000/- with interest @10% per annum from the date of payment till realization,  to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation and  Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

                 In support of his contention the complainant has filed Photostat copies of four money receipts.

              Notice was duly served upon the O.P. but it returned with remark Left.  

                Notice was published upon the O.P. through News Paper but O.P.  did not turn up. Therefore the case was ordered to be proceeded exparte.

               The complainant deposed on dock.  To prove his case, the complainant has examined as PW-1 and during his cross-examination two documents are marked as Exhibit1 & 2 respectively. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has submitted that the complainant hired service to be provided by the O.P. and paid consideration for that but the O.P. did not take any step towards the promised/agreed service and therefore this is a clear example of unfair trade practice.          

Points for decisions :

1.Whether the complainant is consumer under the O.P. ?

2.Whether the O.P. adopted unfair trade practice ?

3.Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

Decisions with reasons :

        All the above points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.

       It appears from the unchallenged evidence adduced by the complainant that he had met the O.P. and agreed to avail his service in respect of agreed amount  of consideration and thus become consumer under the O.P.  as per provision of the section 2(i)(d) under C.P. Act.

Contd………..P/3

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                ( 3 )

     It is alleged by the complainant that inspite of receiving Rs.80,000/- out of the total agreed amount  of Rs.90,000/- the O.P.  did not take any step to get his  name registered under Sainath University,  Jharkhand.

    It is evident from the photocopy of the money receipt that the complainant had paid Rs.80,000/- to the O.P. further the unchallenged evidence adduced by  the complainant proved his allegations.

   Under such state of affairs we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the paid amount of  Rs.80,000/- alongwith compensation of  Rs.10,000/-. Since the O.P. compelled the complainant to file the instant case for deficiency in providing service, the O.P.  is liable to pay the cost of litigation of Rs.7,500/-. In the result the petition of complaint succeeds.

                                         Hence, it is

ORDERED

                                                             that consumer complaint case no.130/2016 is allowed in part exparte with cost.

             The O.P. is directed to refund Rs.80,000/- alongwith the 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing the case, to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

            The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.7,500/- towards cost of litigation within aforesaid period.

              Let plain copy of order be given to the parties free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                     Sd/- S. Sarkar                                                              Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                          Member                                                                        President

                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur