Date of Filing: 09-03-2015 Date of Final Order: 19-02-2016
The brief facts of the present case, as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Seuli Mohanta went to the office of the RCO Edutech Ltd., Cooch Behar and consulted with the O.P. No.1, Champok Sarkar, (M.D) and the O.P. No.2, Kingshuk Dutta (H.R & Administrator) of RCO Edutech Ltd. for the job oriented course. After discussion upon the parties, the Complainant was informed by the O.P. No.1 & 2 that if he want to job from the O.Ps, then she had to deposit of Rs.35,000/- as course fee. Thereafter, the O.P. No.2 entered into an agreement with the Complainant and also received of Rs.25,000/- from the Complainant without issuing any money receipt. The said agreement manifests that “the Complainant is selected for the self development course through the management team of the O.Ps. After training if the Complainant is not selected for any kind of job then the O.Ps are responsible to refund her money with the concern of Board of Director”. After wards, the O.P. No.3, Rajdeep Sarmadhikary, (Treasurer) of RCO Edutech Ltd. has received the rest part of the course fee of Rs. 10,000/- from the Complainant on 14/05/2013 and issued a money receipt which reveals that “if O.Ps unable to provide job opportunity to refund her money”. By not getting any job from the O.Ps after depositing the said course fee of Rs.35,000/- to the O.Ps, the Complainant went to the office of the O.Ps, RCO Edutech Ltd., Cooch Behar for providing any job or refund the said course fee amount of Rs.35,000/-, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed towards the Complainant.
Thereafter the Complainant submitted a written complaint before the office of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar on 17/06/2014 for the purpose of redressing the above disputes and accordingly the said office sent a letter to the O.P. No.1, 2 & 3 for resolving the disputes through the process of mediation. But all efforts were in vain.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffered huge mental pain & agony and unnecessary harassment and there was also deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopting by the O.Ps. As a result the complainant was in financial problem.
Hence, the complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay (i) Rs.35,000/- as refund of the course fee amount, (ii) Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony, unnecessary harassment, (iii) Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and (iv) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
It appears that inspite of due service of Notice upon the O.P. No.1, Champok Sarkar, (M.D), the O.P. No.2, Kingshuk Dutta (H.R & Administrator) of RCO Edutech Ltd., Cooch Behar, did not turn up before the Forum and the O.P. No.3, Rajdeep Sarmadhikary, (Treasurer) appeared but did not contest the case for which this case proceeded in Ex-parte against all of them.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record. Perused the evidence on affidavit and written Argument of the Complainant also heard the argument in Ex-parte.
Point No.1.
The Complainant intended to get proper service from the Opposite Party Company, paid certain amount to the Opposite party No.2 and 3 which is crystal clear from the documents made available in the record. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the opposite Parties so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps.
Point No.2.
The office of the O.Ps is situated in this district and the complaint value is far less than the prescribed limit for which this Forum has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Evidently, the Complainant was selected for the Self development Course organized by the Opposite Party Company and that Annexure “A” reveals that one Kingshuk Datta, the O.P. No. 2 sent a letter on behalf of the Opposite Party Company on a Non-Judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/- where in it is promised by the O.P. Company “the Complainant is selected for the self development course through the management team of the O.Ps. After training if the Complainant is not selected for any kind of job then the O.Ps are responsible to refund her money with the concern of Board of Director”.
Annexure “B” reveals that one Rajdeep Sarmadhikary, i.e. O.P. No. 3 the Treasurer of the O.P. Company received Rs. 10,000/- on 14.05.2013 as rest amount of the course fees. There also the O.P. No. 3 agreed to refund the course fee, in failure to provide her a secured job.
Annexure “C” reveals that the Complainant at first made a complaint to the A/D CAFBP to solve the dispute amicably. As such on 30.06.2014 the representatives of the O.P. No. 1&3 appeared before the A/D CAFBP and prayed further date for settlement. Thus, the allegation of the Complainant is an admitted fact beyond any manner of doubt. Ultimately, the O.P. No. 1&3 did not appear before that office on the date fixed for settlement i.e. on 08.07.2014.
It is pertinent to mention that despite receiving the notice from the Forum the O.P. No. 1&2 did not appear to contest the case also the O.P. No. 3 appeared but did not contest the case by filing w/v or evidence with documents. Thus, we did not find any bonafideness of the opposite Parties.
On perusal the entire documents we find that an assurance was given by the opposite parties to the Complainant for providing job and received certain amount from the Complainant. Thus, the Opposite parties guaranteed to provide service to the Complainant but the O.Ps failed to offer/provide her any job. In the documents we did not find any single scrap of papers in this regard. The Complainant by swearing an affidavit stated the above fact and that was unchallenged. The Opposite Parties did not contest the case that seems they have nothing to counter the allegation made by the Complainant against them.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant cited two rulings. 2013 (I) CPR 294 (NC) and 2015 CJ 63 (NC). In a similar case reported in 2015 CJ 63 (NC) the National Commission pleased to hold that – There can be contract of personal service only if there is relationship of master and servant but not when providing of service is guaranteed. In the present case the service was guaranteed but the O.Ps failed to provide any job to the Complainant that tantamount to deficiency in service and as per promise the O.Ps are liable to return the deposited amount to the Complainant. The Opposite parties are running their business by adopting the arm of unfair trade practice,
The Complainant filed some documents in original but nowhere we find any receipt of payment of Rs. 25,000/- though the Complainant in her evidence also in the complaint petition stated that the O.Ps did not issue any receipt against the payment of Rs. 25,000/ -but from the documents it is crystal clear that the O.P. 2 received certain amount before receiving of Rs.10,000/- from the Complainant. In this case no challenge is made on behalf of the opposite parties. Moreover, no denial has been made by the Opposite Parties in this regard before the A/D CAFBP. This Forum cannot deny the statement of the Complainant filed with an affidavit as and when that is totally unchallenged.
Be that as it may, on perusal the entire documents and in the light of foregoing discussion we are in considered opinion that the Opposite Party No. 2&3 received Rs. 35,000/- from the Complainant on condition to offer her a job but he failed to keep promise for which deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the Opposite Parties.
Point No. 4
As it is already proved that the Opposite Parties have deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to get relief.
Accordingly, all points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Thus, the case succeeds by unchallenged testimonies.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The complaint be and the same is allowed in Ex-Parte with cost of Rs.5,000/-against the O.Ps but in part.
The O.Ps are directed to pay the Complainant Rs.35,000/- as the deposited amount to the Opposite Party Office along with 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties, caused severe mental pain and agonies of the Complainant.
The O.Ps are hereby also directed to comply with the order jointly and/or severally within 30 days failure of which O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.50/- jointly and/or severally for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
