West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/65/2015

Rajkumar Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sk. Sahanawaz Hossain - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 

Complaint Case No.65/2015

 

    Raj Kumar Ghosh………….…………Complainant

Versus

                                                             Sk. Sahanawaz Hossain & Sk. Alamgir Hossain……..Opp. Parties.

 

For the Complainant: Mr. Subasish  De, Advocate.

For the O.P.               :

Decided on: - 31/08/2015

                               

ORDER

               Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member – The case of the complainant in a brief, is that the complainant is the resident of Chandur under Chandrakona P.S. within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

The opposite parties are the proprietor of Quex Education and Markin Edutech Academy running their business within  Midnapore town within the jurisdiction of this town.

The complainant is a Master Degree holder in Mathematics. He has come to know that the opposite parties are dealing with education and they have connection with different university. After knowing the same the complainant came to the office of the opposite parties  and requested them for admission in B.Ed. course. The opposite parties  agreed that they admit the complainant in B.Ed. course 2013-2014 session  Karomondal College of Education under Acharya Nagarjuna University (A.P.). The opposite parties disclosed that the complainant has to pay Rs.50,000/- to the opposite parties for admission in B.Ed. course.

                                                                                                                                                                            Contd…………………P/2  

                                         

                                                                                                           ( 2 )

Thereafter the complainant came to the office of the opposite parties and paid Rs.50,000/- only against proper receipt on 01/12/2012, 10/12/2013, 09/02/2014, 12/04/2014, 17/05/2014 and 05/07/2014 and after receiving the aforesaid money the opposite parties disclosed that they  will handed over the related document of B.Ed. course within 1 month i.e. August, 2014. Thereafter the complainant came to the office of the opposite parties for documents of admission but the parties started to avoid the complainant on various pleas.

The complainant in such situation on 05/09/2014 came to the office of the opposite parties again and asked them about the documents. But the opposite parties disclosed they will not be able to admit the complainant in the B.Ed. course and disclosed that they will return back the money to the complainant.  Thereafter the opposite parties returned Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant came to the office of the opposite parties several times and requested them to return back the balance amount and lastly on 15/06/2015 the complainant came to the opposite parties but the opposite parties refused to return back the money.

The opposite parties took Rs.50,000/- from the complainant with a view to  provide service. But the opposite parties have failed to provide service to the complainant. Thus the complainant is the consumer under the opposite parties. Therefore complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties.

               The Ld. Advocate for the complainant filed relevant documents on the point of service of notice. So there exists strong reason to believe that the opposite parties are willfully avoiding their appearance in this case. In view of the present circumstances in the materials on record there are no options but to hear the case exparte.                        

                In this connection some documents namely photocopy of money receipt dated 01/12/2012, 10/12/2013, 09/02/2014, 12/04/2014, 17/05/2014 and 05/07/2014.

               We have carefully considered the case supported by the above documentary evidence. So, it is a fit case to hold that the complainant has proved the allegation of deficiency in service against the opposites parties.  

                                                                                    Decisions with reasons

That such non returned the admissions fee taken from the complainant for admission in B.Ed. course is deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties. The complainant being a consumer under the provisions of Consumers Protection Act, under the given facts and circumstances and observation above this is a fit case held that the allegation of deficiency of service against the opposite parties.

                                                                                                                                                                        Contd…………………P/3                                                

                                                                                                     ( 3 )

                                           Hence, it is,

                                                              Ordered,

                                                                              that the case be and the same is allowed ex-parte. The complainant do get advance money of Rs.40,000/- with up to date interest.

Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for damage and compensation and further be directed to pay Rs.1,000/- for litigation costs within 60 days from the date of this order. In default the complainant is already to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of law in this behalf.

 

 Dictated & Corrected by me    

                 

              Member                                                                            President

                                                                                                      D.C.D.R.F.

                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur