Orissa

Rayagada

CC/111/2018

Deepak Kumar Maharana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Subasis Mohaparta Director/Manager, Induslnfo Mana Gement Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.       111         / 2018.                                 Date.    20     .12. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

                                                           

Sri Deepak  Kumar Moharana, S/O: Biswanath Moharana, At/Po: Mardakote, Dist:Ganjam(Odisha)

At  present  residing at  R.K.Nagar,  Po/Dist:Rayagada , 765 001  (Odisha).

                                                                                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1. Shri  Subasis Mohapatra, Director/Manager, Indusinfo Management  Pvt. Ltd.,256D, Forest  park, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, Pin No. 751  009, cell No. 9439666996.
2. Shri Madhusudan Das,  S/O: Rabindra Das, AT: Mahuria Street, Mardakote, Dist:Ganjam,Pin No. 761 032,  cell No. 7008445214.

                                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri  Sitaram Panda,  Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps.      :-    Set  Exparte.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  neither issue of 10^th. Standard  certificate  nor refund  deposited amount a sum of Rs.18,000/-    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the O.Ps  neither   entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1(One) years   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps.  were set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

          Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

                Undisputedly   the  O.P. No.1  was   running  educational  institute  at  Bhubaneswar and  the O.P. No.2  was the commission  agent of the O.P. No.1.  The complainant  had taken admission for  Academic year  2015-2016 in the said  institution   for the 10^th.  Standard   certificate   under  (National  Institute  of open schooling) on assurance  that   after  completion  of  course  there would be  issue certificate  in favour of the complainant.  The complainant  had paid  Rs.18,000/- to the  O.P. No.1  in shape  of bank transfer  in turn  the O.P. No.1 had issued  cash receipt  bearing No. 023 dt. 14.9.2015 (copies of the money receipt is in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I).          

The main grievance of the complainant is that  by giving false assurance  towards   issue  of   10^th. Standard  certificate  in  favour of the complainant  amount  was taken from him.   However certificate was not given  and also amount was  returned. Inspite  of assurance,  the certificate  of 10^th. Standard  was not issued  to the  complainant and, therefore,  complainant  had filed  the C.C. case before the forum.

It is an admitted position  on  record that the amount  of Rs.18,000/- was paid by the complainant.  Not only that even  certificate  as assured  was not given  to the complainant.

In the present case in hand the O.Ps have made  admission to the complainant   in their institution situated at Bhubaneswar  for  10^th. Class Examination   for  Academic year  2015-2016 by recovering fees  a sum of Rs.18,000/-  but till date the  O.Ps  have  not  delivered the 10^th. Certificate to the complainant .   This is on the basis of contract  between the  parties, and is  based on the consideration (fees) for rendering education. Such student on the basis of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) read with  section 2(1)(o) would be hirer of service for consideration and  hence  the complainant  would be consumer.   

This forum found there is a deficiency in service, unfair trade practice   on the part of the O.Ps for neither  handed over the  10^th  certificate nor  refund the deposited amount to the complainant.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2011(2) page No. 94 (National Commission) and reported  in  OLR(CSR) 2005(1) State commission, Cuttack  page  No. 71  where in the commissions  observed  “that Educational institution  imparting  of education  for consideration  falls within the  ambit of service as defined in the Act.  A student who takes admission in the educational institution hires  the service of the educational institution for consideration,  he is a consumer as defined under the Act.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

On perusal of the complaint  this forum found the O.Ps made mischief’s and  play with career   of the complainant which is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the forum  whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in non refunding the fees  which was received by the O.Ps. without any service  as per the  provisions laid down under section 14 of the  C.P. Act.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the grievances of the complaint which amounts to  deficiency in service  as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.Ps  jointly and severally liable.

Forum observed   after receipt of the grievances, no action has been taken by the said O.Ps in ensuring refund of deposited fees  as alleged. Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service.

For better appriciation this forum relied  citations which are mentioned here.

            It is held and  reported  in C.P.R-2009(1) page No.269 the hon’ble  State Commission, Andhra Pradesh where in observed “Where  complainant having chosen to take admission in another college demanded his money deposited  by way of refund, it was deficiency in service on part of the O.P. in not refunding  the  amount”.

            Further it is held  and reported in C.P.R-2009(1) page No. 340 the hon’ble State Commission, Chennai where in observed “Denial of refund of tution fees to a student who withdraw from admission without joining the  class  amounts to  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service”.

            Again  it is held and  reported in C.P.R. 2006(2) page No.97 the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi where in observed  “ No educational institution, centre, or university can forfeit the amount received  by it  at  the time of admission in case it has not provided the  service  for which consideration was meant”.

            Further  it is held and reported  in C.P.R.2006(2) page No. 357 the Hon’ble State Commission,Pondichecy where in observed “Where a student withdraws  admission  from institution full amount of fee has to be refunded”.

            Again it is held and reported in C.P.R-2012(1)  page No. 125  the Hon’ble State Commission, Moharashtra  where in observed  “ Educational institutions can not be  allowed  to dupe  innocent students”.

            Further  it is held and reported   in C.P.R.-2009(1) page No. 85  the Hon’ble Mumbai  State  C.D.R.Commission, where in observed “ Giving  of admission to the students in a  Educational  Institution by recovering fees and in such cases if  there is any dispute with regard to the validity of such admission or illegality,  irregularity committed by such institution in giving  admissions, such dispute, would be covered under the C.P. Act, 1986.”

            Again it is held  and reported in C.P.R-2011() page No.29  the  Hon’ble State Commission,  Chahattishgarh  where in observed “Publication of alluring misleading advertisement is unfair”.

            In the instant case we find that the advertisement published  by the present  O.Ps   was deceptive and the complainant reasonably believed that he will  got  10^th. Certificate   from  the O.Ps.

             

            Basing on the  above citations of the  Hon’ble Commission  this forum allow this case in part.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

 

 

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                           

                                                                        ORDER.

            In  resultant  the complaint petition stands allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.Ps.

            The O.Ps. are  ordered to refund fees  amount a sum of  Rs.18,000/-  to the complainant  with interest @ Rs. 9 % per annum from the respective date of deposit  till realisation    inter alia to pay Rs.500/-  for   litigation expenses.

                We therefore issued a “Cease and Desist” order against the O.P. directing  him to stop such a practice  forthwith and not to repeat in future. 

The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of  receipt of this order.  Service the copies of the order to the parties on free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.            Pronounced on this        20th .    day of   December, 2019.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT