:    J U D G M E N T    :

The brief fact of the case is that the consumer / complainant decided to do the course on web Technology from the op’s institution. The complainant took admission in op’s institution. On 09/08/12 the complainant went to the office of the op at Ranaghat for taking admission . The course duration would be 18 months . The student should have to pay Rs 20000/- and at first he paid Rs 1200/- in the office of ops for his admission. The ops informed that they would provide training as well as tuition for 3 days in a week and class would be started from 6 pm to 8 pm and 4 pm to 6 pm in Saturday only. But no class was started since 09/08/12 .Thereafter , the ops informed the complainant in the month of December 2012 , that ops was not in a position to start the said course . and no other students took the admission in the said course . The ops did not provide any study material and proper teaching though they have taken money from the complainant .Hence the case.

Op no – 1 contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that the op admits that on 9/8/12 the complainant went to the office of the op at Ranaghat and being satisfied with their course and fees, he decided to take admission in the course known as Web Technology . The ops also admitted in written version that duration of course would be 18 months from the date of admission and as per norms every student should have to pay total sum of Rs 20000/- and in fact complainant being satisfied with their prospectus , paid a sum of Rs 1200/- to op. The total course fee was of Rs 20000/- ( Rs 5000/- for admission fee and Rs 1500/- given in 10 installments). The complainant paid Rs1000/- in cash for pursuing the course of web technology and paid Rs 200/- for form and prospectus. As he has failed to pay Rs 5000/- fixed for admission fees. So he was not considered as enrolled student of that institution. No identity card, fee card etc was given to him which are normally given to the other students of that institution. After 9/8/12 the complainant did not turn up in the institute. He cannot be considered as an enrolled student of the said institution. So he is not entitled to get any claim and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Op no – 2 also contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia more or less same views of op no 1 mentioned above.

Now this Forum is to consider the following points:-

1 Whether the complainant is to be treated as a consumer or not as per provision of Consumer Protection Act,1986 .

2 Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of ops or not .

3 Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not.

Decision with reasons

The record gives indication that the complainant in substantiating her claim submitted certain documents and ops also submitted no. of documents for supporting their case.We have perused all documents along with complaint , written versions , brief notes of arguments etc .It has become settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court , Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission that whenever a person approaches the jurisdiction of a Forum for the purpose of having any relief , he/she is under obligation to prove himself/herself  to be a consumer.In the instant case the complainant paid Rs 1200/- in office of ops for the purpose of doing the course regarding  Web Technology at Ranaghat and in this respect the office of ops issued a receipt bearing  no 011 dated 9/8/12.The ops received of Rs 1200/- from the complainant for part payment of admission fee and for prospectus. In the instant case ops are to be treated as a service provider as per C P Act 1986. Be it mentioned that this institution does not come within the purview of meaning BOARD/ UNIVERSITY. This institution is a purely private concern. Furthermore that as per section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C P ACT 1986 , any person who hires or avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system of deferred payment , is a consumer. So under the above facts and circumstances and the status between the complainant and ops ,the complainant is to be treated as a consumer as per provision of C P Act 1986.

At first we have perused the fees structure in respect of course vizMastering Web Technology in the prospectus. It is fact that the application fee of Rs 500/-, caution money of Rs 500/-, library fees of Rs 100/-, exam fee of Rs 700/-and admission fee of Rs 5000/-. Seminar fees shall be declared by notification. The tuition fee shall be paid of Rs 15000/-(ieRs 1500/- in 10 installment).The total course fee is of Rs 20000/- which is clearly revealed from the prospectus issued by ops.

Thereafter we have carefully perused the receipt bearing no 011 dated 9/8/12 issued by the ops. The ops received Rs 1000/- towards part payment of admission fee and Rs 200/- towards prospectus. Actually the ops receivedRs 1200/- from the complainant on 9/8/12 for part payment of admission fee and for other charges. In case of Amity Business School and another v Puneet Jain 2008 CTJ 300 (CP) (SCDRC) , the Hon’ble State Commission , Delhi held that there cannot be worst and unscrupulous kind of practice to become unjustly rich without having provided any service and usurping consideration therefore , we have also held that any such term agreed by the parties that fees once paid shall not be refunded is unconscionable and viod- ab-initio for the simple reason that service provider has to provide service if it has received consideration thereof.

In case of Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital v BhupeshKhurana and others 2009 CTJ 373 (SC) (CP) Civil Appeal no – 1135 of 2001, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions . If there is no rendering of service , question of payment of fee would not arise. In the argument by both sides, it is established that due to want of no. of students the ops have failed to start the said course at Ranaghat. They were not in a position to render the service to the complainant , though they received Rs 1200/- from the complainant. So there is no negligence or fault on the part of complainant .There is a clear gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of ops. So it should be the duty of ops to refund Rs 1200/- to the complainant. All the points are decided as per above observations. The case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the cc no – 2014/121be and same is allowed on contest against the ops with cost of Rs 800/- .

That the ops are hereby directed to pay Rs 1200/- plus cost of Rs 800/- ie total 2000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order id interest @ 10 % pa shall be charged upon the awarded amount till full realization.

Let the copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.