Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The case record is taken up for passing Final Order.
The grievance of the Complainants sorted down through the complaint that the Complainants Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Manoranjan Shil and Ganesh Barman have been working at Amlaguri(M.S.K), Maruganj, Cooch Behar as Shiksha Samprosarak. The Complainants received a letter alongwith form for admission to the D.EL.Ed through NIDS for Sahaika and Samprasaraks(Compulsory) and guideline from Tufanganj-I, P.S. Tufanganj, Cooch Behar urgent on 31.08.17. The Complainant came to know that all Sahaika and Samprasaraks will have to take admission of completion of the aforesaid course of two years compulsory and have to fill up form online deposited Rs.4,500/- + bank charges within 14.09.17. The Complainants accordingly contacted with the OP Chiranjit Roy, Proprietor of Mahamaya Tours and Travel, Maruganj, Cooch Behar. After discussion OP agreed to deposit online and thereafter Complainants submitted necessary documents alongwith Rs.4,600/- per head, total Rs.4,600/- x 3 with a code No.19030410102. The OP deposited the payment online and subsequently on scrutiny it was found that the OP deposited the said money on a wrong code No.19030000148 instead of 190030410104. The Complainants informed the OP that he had deposited aforesaid amount in wrong code number. The OP assured the Complainants to solve the problem but all efforts were in vain. Having found no alternative the Complainants further deposited the said money online through other computer centre successfully. The OP deliberately and negligently deposited the said amount in wrong code number for which the Complainants suffered irreparable loss and injury for which Complainants lodged a written complaint to the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs on 31.10.17 against which a mediation was held on 18.12.17. Subsequently the OP refunded Rs.2,000/- to Complainants No.2 & 3 but did not refund the balance amount of Rs.26,000/- to Complainants No.2 & 3 and Rs.4,600/- to Complainant No.1. Despite repeated request the OP did not refund the said money for which the present case is filed. The Complainants prayed for direction to OP for refunding Rs.5,200/- to Complainants No.2 & 3 and Rs.4,600/- with interest to the Complainant No.1, Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for cost of proceedings.
The OP contested the case by filing W/V and adduced evidence. It is found from the case record that the OP contested the case up to a certain stage but the fag-end he preferred not to contest the case and as such there was an order for hearing the case ex-parte. However since the Complainant files W/V and adduced evidence so defence case of the OP is also considered.
The Complainant in order to establish the case adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The factual averment and the denial of the pleadings persuaded the Commission to ascertain the following points.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the Complainants are Consumer under the C.P. Act?
- Whether the Complainants are entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
Although the OP did not dispute the status of the Complainant as Consumer yet having perused the pleadings of both the parties and the documents in the case record the Commission is of the view that the Complainants are Consumer under the C.P. Act. Accordingly the point No.1 is decided on behalf of the Complainant.
Points No.2 & 3.
Both the points are closely interlinked with each other and as such these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.
The written version of the OP clearly admitted the factual aspect about the description of the UDISE as introduced by the Govt. recently. The further factual allegation of the Complainant also comes in a true form from the averment of para-10 of the written version of the OP wherein the OP admitted about agreement of the said application but in a different form to the effect that it was automatically registered. But the defence plea that there is no question of refunding the said money does not appear to be correct in as much as the OP did not deny that Complainant rectified the said defect through another institution.
The defence plea that since the application of the Complainant were correctly registered at a subsequent stage so there is no question of refunding the said money does not hold good in as much as there is nothing to show that the OP corrected the said registration. On the contrary, the Complainant specifically pleaded and adduced evidence that they corrected it through another institution. So any other institution also runs and do their business in exchange of professional fees for which the Complainant had to pay.
The evidence led by the Complainants in the form of affidavit in chief and the reply to the questionnaires also proved the veracity of the allegation made out in the complaint.
The different annexures filed and proved as documentary evidence by the Complainant also established that the project D. EL.Ed course through NIOS for Sahaika and Samprasaraks dated 31.08.17 was in vogue. The Mission Director, Joint secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal also issued instruction to the SSk and MSk cell vide memo No.561(20)/1(22) Mission-333(II)/2017 dated 29.08.17.
The PBRSSM Mission vide its letter dated 29.08.17 informed to the additional executive Officer Zilaparishad about the said rule of registration by the untrained teacher. In the said course UDISE code 190-304-101-02 the said document discloses about the details procedure as well as payment of Rs.4,500/- + bank charges.
Annexure-B being NIOS D.EL.Ed system teacher section also discloses the name of the Complainants Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, Manoranjan Shil and Ganesh Barman against application status shown as payment completed. So far as the disputed document is concerned, B series document of National institution of open schooling for Ganesh Barman which shows that the code was given wrong. Instead of 19030410102, the wrong code 19030000148 had been registered.
The subsequent steps by the Complainant stands proved through the declaration form dated 12.09.17 wherein the name of the Complainants were noted with bio data in the specific format.
The Annexure-C also discloses that the Complainants name were registered for the Amalguri MSK with UDISE ending with digits 102.
The note sheet of the Consumer Affairs Department during mediation dated 18.12.17 projects that the OP Mr. Roy (Chiranjit Roy) said that he could give Rs.1,000/- to four person who have not get Rs.2,000/- but the Complainants did not agree to the same. Accordingly proceedings was dropped.
These documents also is an additional evidence to prove the veracity of the complaint’s case about their payment of money and not refunding the same.
The evidence on affidavit of the OP and the questionnaires filed by the OP vis-à-vis the evidence on affidavit and documentary evidence of the Complainant are duly assessed against each other from which the Commission comes to the findings that the Complainant successfully proved their claim that the OP deposited the disputed amount in the wrong UDISE code for which the Complainant sustained loss and had to run here and there to register their names and redressal for their grievance.
The misdeeds proved by the Complainant against the OP tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which the Complainants sustained mental pain and agony.
In the given facts and circumstances as well as the evidence on record established the allegation by the Complainants against the OP.
In the result the complaint case succeeds on contest.
Accordingly points No. 2 & 3 are decided on behalf of the Complainants. Consequently the complaint case succeeds on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainants No.2 & 3 do get an award of Rs.5,200/- and Complainant No.1 do get an award of Rs.4,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum, Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of proceedings. The OP Chiranjit Roy is directed to pay Rs.2,600/- with interest each to the Complainants No.2 & 3 and Rs 4,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the case till the realization, Rs.10,000/- to each Complainants for mental pain and agony and deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- each to the Complainants towards cost of proceedings within one month from the date of passing the order failing which the OP shall pay 6% interest on the awarded sum together with principal from the date of passing the Final Order till date of realization thereof to the Complainants.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
