This is a complaint made by one Sri Sankha Subhra Debnath, son of Sri Ranjit Kr. Debnath, represented by his attorney Sri Ranjit Kr. Debnath, Vill-Banamalipur, East Thana Lane, Agartala, Tripura, PIN-799001 against (1) Sri Nilratan Dutta, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Camellia Group, Trust House, 7th floor, 32A, C. R. Avenue, Kolkata-700 012, OP No.1, (2) Camellia Institute of Aviation, under the aegis of Multiple Manpower Development Pvt. Ltd., Campus- Camellia Tower, 10 G.N.Block, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091, OP No.2 Corporate Office –(a) Trust House, 7th floor, 32A, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata-700 012 (b) Flying Institute : Behala Aerodrome, Hanger No.2, Behala Parnasree, Kolkata-700 060, praying for (a) a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- fees paid to the OP No.2 to the Institute OP No.2, (b) a sum of Rs.6,093/- as interest of loan which was paid by the father of the Complainant, (c) a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the loss incurred by the father of the Complainant, (d) a sum of Rs.69,000/- towards the loss incurred by the father of the Complainant in sustaining the Complainant and his sister, (e) a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and suffering, (f) a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the loss suffered by his father, (g) a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the loss incurred by the Complainant, (h) cost of Rs.20,000/-, (i) a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the litigation cost and for interest at the prevailing bank rate on the aforesaid amount from the date of deposit and for (j) litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that Sri Ranjit Kr. Debnath filed this complaint on behalf of the Complainant Sri Sankha Subhra Debnath. Complainant is the son of a retired Tripura Govt. employee and a cancer patient who is under treatment of Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. The Complainant had a long cherished dream and aspiration to become commercial pilots and in order to pursue this career in course of gathering information could come to know about OP No.2 institution and took admission for CPL Course. One Sri Joydeep Ghosh an educational consultant and proprietor of the exponent consultancy, Jail Ashram Road Dhaleswar, Agartala, West Tripura, also spoke high about the OP No.2 institution. It was clearly mentioned that the course was for 15 months. Complainant got assurance that the course will be completed within 15 months. So, Complainant was admitted after taking loan by his father to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- for admission and other fees. Complainant’s father made payment of Rs.1,01,000/-. Father of the Complainant took a flat near the flying institute of OP No.1 at 8/20, Nibedita Sarani, Behala Parnasree, at the rate of monthly Rs.3,000/- for stay of the Complainant with his sister so that he and his sister might undertake the aforesaid training and education. The father of the Complainant spent Rs.69,000/- towards the rent. Rs.2,00,000/- was spent for establishment cost, food, clothing, pocket money, etc. of the Complainant and his sister. The sister of the Complainant Smt. Sumitra Debnath also filed a separate case before the Hon’ble Commission.
OP No.1 and other officials concerned of the OP No.2 always made tall claims and false assurance about the prospect of the Complainant. The father of the Complainant also took educational loan for meeting the expenses.
Thereafter, Complainant could realize that his dreams and aspirations fell on earth. The approval of the institute was terminated by the Director General of Civil Aviation. In this way OPs played with the life of the Complainant and his sister and put them into jeopardy. The father of the Complainant suffered huge mental agony, diabetes and insomnia and other diseases. The institute was closed subsequently and Complainant could not fulfill his dreams and his sister also was betrayed. The father of the Complainant filed that case No.2, 2011 before the Hon’ble Commission upon which at the stage of admission OP filed a petition on maintainability on which MA69/2012 was registered and this Forum passed an order that the complaint was not maintainable. Against this OP preferred revision before the National Commission and on hearing National Commission was pleased to pass order to allow the said revision petition. So, Complainant filed this case.
OPs filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. The contention of the OP is that Complainant by narrating the personal life and problems intended to blackmail the management and the course was never for 15 months. OPs could provide service which depends upon the aptitude of the students. However, OP has stated that course fee is Rs.17,00,000/-, per student excluding the hostel charge and uniform charges. Further, OPs have stated that they have nothing to say about the rented accommodation and expenses for staying near the flying club. It is admitted that OP paid Rs1,40,000/- as full and final settlement for Complainant as well as his sister. Complainant is not entitled to further refund. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this, OPs have filed questionnaire. Against the questionnaire Complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OPs have filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP has filed reply.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for Rs.19,87,093/- on different heads. However, after claiming the amount mentioned by the Complainant, it appears that the amount is more than Rs.20,00,000/-. Accordingly, we afraid that this Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by the Complainant.
Further, on perusal of the affidavit-in-chief and questionnaire as well as affidavit-in-reply, it appears that Complainant has filed this case for realizing a huge amount from the OPs on the ground that his father suffered mentally as well as physically and his father hired a rented accommodation near the flying club.
Further, on perusal of the evidence of the OPs and written version, it is clear that the training of flying is a matter which is related with the aptitude of the person concerned. Of course, there are training institutes which impart training. But, it does not mean that if a person does not have aptitude of that he can be a flier.
The circumstances narrated here in the complaint reflect that the failure of the Complainant and his sister was due to lack of aptitude and there was no latches of the institute. Complainant has alleged that the institute was derecognized. However, we do not find any document in this regard and so it cannot be said that due to derecognition of the institute Complainant suffered.
Considering the above discussion, it is clear that Complainant is not entitled to relief as because this case is not maintainable here due to the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and also due to the fact that Complainant failed to prove the allegations brought.
Hence,
ordered
RBT/CC/297/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
