Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/107

Smt. Dipti Majamder Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Anirban Lodh. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Pandit, Mr.A.Debnath.

02 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 107 of 2014

Smt. Dipti Majumdar(Das),
W/o- Sri Jahar Lal Das,
Jogendra Nagar, 
Agartala, West Tripura.        ...........Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

Sri Anirban Lodh,
S/o- Sri Haradhan Lodh,
Scretary,
Sancharan Educational 
Welfare Society, 
Kerchowmuhani, 
Krishnanagar, 
Agartala, West Tripura         .........Opposite party.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant         : Mr. Swarup Pandit and
                  Mr. A. Debnath,
                  Advocates.
                           
For the Opposite party    : None Appeared.
                    

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 02.06.15

J U D G M E N T     
            This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Smt. Dipti Majumdar(Das) of Jogendra Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.P., Sri Anirban Lodh, Secretary, Sancharan Educational Society, Kerchoumuhani, Agartala, West Tripura over a consumer dispute allegedly for adopting unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. 
2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that being lured by the advertisement published in the local daily 'Dainik Sambad' regarding online admission and coaching under National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), the complainant met the O.P. and being satisfied with the promise given by him the complainant got her daughter admitted to the institution run by him on 02.05.13. Accordingly, she paid Rs.6800/- towards admission fee for the session of July, 2013 to December, 2013. As per terms of agreement, the O.P. was supposed to give free coaching and used to supply study materials to complainant's daughter free of costs till she gets passed in the examination. The O.P. also assured that he would arrange pass certificate for her daughter from the NIOS else he would refund the entire money. It is alleged that though the complainant got her daughter admitted for July, 2013 to December, 2013 session, yet no admit card was issued to enable her to sit for an  examination for that session. In the first week of September, 2013, the O.P. demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as advance for giving free coaching and supply of study materials. For the future of her daughter, the complainant conceded to this proposal and paid the amount demanded by the O.P. on 12.09.13. But inspite of receiving amount in full the O.P. did not keep his words by giving free coaching and supplying of study materials to her daughter. After consistent persuasions, the O.P. issued admit card infavour of her daughter to appear in the examination for January, 2014 – June, 2014 Session. But she could not come out successful in the examination. The complainant along with her husband then met the O.P. on several occasions and requested him to return the money paid to him as per terms of agreement but they were threatened by the O.P. with dire consequences. Finding no other alternative, the complainant issued a demand notice to the O.P. on 29.10.14 but no response has been received from him till date. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.P. constitutes unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.

3.        Upon receipt of the notice, the O.P. entered his appearance and made a petition seeking time to file written objection. Ultimately the O.P. did not contest the case. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against him.

4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined herself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:       
      Exhibit 1: Copy of paper publication dated 24th June, 2014,

Exhibit 2: Money receipt towards Admission Fee,

Exhibit 3:  Certificate dated 12.09.13 issued by the                 Secretary, Sancharan Education Welfare                 Society,

Exhibit 4: Online Admission status of Paramita Das,

Exhibit 5: Secondary Practical Examination Intimation,

Exhibit 6: Hall Tickets for March-April, 2014,

Exhibit 7: Result for March-April, 2014 Exams,

Exhibit 8: Advocate’s Notice dated 28.10.14. 

                FINDINGS:

5.         The only point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is;
         (i)  Whether the O.P. adopted unfair trade practice and is guilty of negligence and deficient in rendering service.
         
We have already heard argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Also perused the pleading, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.
The complainant, in her evidence, has clearly stated that being lured by the promise given by the O.P. she got her daughter admitted to the institution run by the O.P. She was assured by the O.P. that he would give free coaching and supply study materials to her daughter till she gets passed in the examination. She was also assured by the O.P. that he would arrange pass certificate for her daughter from NIOS. Relying upon the assurance given by the O.P. the complainant got her daughter admitted to the institution run by the O.P. for session July-December, 2013 by paying admission fee of Rs.6800/-. She also paid Rs.30,000/- as advance for giving coaching and supplying of study materials though at the time of admission she was told by the O.P. that her daughter would be given free coaching and supplied with study material free of costs till she gets passed in the examination. The evidence of the complainant stands corroborated by the written undertaking (Exhibit- 3) given by the O.P. 
8.        Exhibit 3 clearly stipulates that the O.P. assured the complainant to supply text books, notes etc. and taking of coaching classes 3 days in a week till handing over pass certificate to her daughter, failing which he shall be bound to refund full amount with interest. It appears that after consistent persuasions the O.P. issued admit card to the complainant's daughter to sit for an examination for March to April, 2014 Session. Exhibit 7 (Results for March-April, 2014 exams) shows that the complainant's daughter could not come out successful in the examination. It is the allegation of the complainant that her daughter could not pass the examination as she was not supplied with study materials and was not given free coaching as per terms of agreement. 
9.         The evidence given by the complainant has remained unrebutted and unshaken. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the complainant. Until contrary is proved, we have to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. It is well settled that imparting of education for considerations falls within the ambit of  'service' as defined in section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Since the O.P. did not render service to the complainant's daughter as per assurance given by him to the complainant by dint of Exhibit-3, we have no doubt in our minds that the conduct of the O.P. falls within the ambit of unfair trade practice which constitutes deficiency in service. 
10.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed exparte. The O.P. is directed to refund Rs.36,800/-(Rupees Thirty six thousand eight hundred) to the complainant which was received by him towards admission fee and as advance for giving free coaching and supplying of study materials within one month from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f.12.09.13  till the payment is made. The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for causing  mental agony and harassment together with Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation.
11.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.