DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __299_ _ OF ___2015

DATE OF FILING :_23.6.2015                DATE OF  JUDGEMENT:  11.4.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :      Joydeb Jana, son of Ramgopal Jana, of paschim Karmada, P.O Banamalirchhata, P.S Marishada, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin- 721449.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : Sumantra Gupta, son of _____, Director of Viniyak Consultancy Private Limited, at 59, Jodhpur Gardens, Kolkata-45 , resident of Panchajanya, 1^st floor, 25/59, Prince Golam Md. Sh. Road, Golf Green, Kolkata-95, P.S Jadavpur and also at D/08/14, Ashabori, Uttaraan Complex, P.O Matigora, Dist. Darjeeling, Pin-734010.

_________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Jhunu Prasad, Member

           Sky-kissing ambition sometimes proves tobe boomerang and this has so happened in case of the complainant.          

            Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

           The complainant is a retired employee of Indian Railways and he wanted to see his son namely Krishnandu Bikash Jana  to be a doctor. So, he made contact with the O.P who acts as a consultant and the O.P convinced the complainant that he would make arrangement for admission of the son of the complainant to a medical college , in Karnataka for a package of Rs.24 lacs. The complainant paid Rs.14 lac to the O.P and his son was also admitted in Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Karnata . But , one day, a letter was received on 12.10.2011 and subsequently on 26.4.2013 from the Principal of that medical college , whereby the said Principal has aksed the son of the complainant to pay Rs.12,30,000/- on or before 10.5.2013 , in default, threat of taking necessary action was given in that letter. Having received this letter, the complainant came to know thqat the O.P who received Rs.14 lac from him has not paid all the amounts to the medical college and ,therefoe, the complainant has filed the instant case , praying for refund of the said amount of Rs.14 lac along with a compensatgion of Rs.20 lac. Hence, this case.

             Notice of the case has been served upon the O.P by way of publication through newspaper and inspite of such publication, the O.P has not turned up to contest the case. So, the case proceeds exparte against him.

            Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the O.P guilty of  deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

           The complainant led evidence on affidavit and the same is kept in the record after consideration.

                                       DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no. 1 & 2

          In the instant case, the complainant has prayed for refund of a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- from the O.P. According to the complainant, the O.P. runs a consultancy agency and he convinced the complaint that he would get his son admitted to a medical college for study of M.B.B.S. in lieu of package of Rs. 24,00,000/-. Complainant believed in the words of the O.P and paid Rs. 14,00,000/- to the O.P. for payment to the Medical College in which his son has been admitted. But, the O.P. did not pay the said amount to the Medical College and has not also refunded the amount to the complainant. All these transpire in the affidavit filed by the complainant and all these go unchallenged as the O.P. has not turned up to contradict all these. The complainant has filed the copies of the money receipts granted by the O.Ps. He has also filed 2 letters dated 26.04.2013 and 12.10.2010 of the Medical College namely Adichunchamagiri Institute of Medical Science. These letters go to establish that Rs. 12,30,000/- was due to that Medical College from the complainant. The complainant has filed 3 money receipts dated 11.10.2009, 13.10.2009 and 07.04.2010 granted by the O.P. These money receipts go to establish that the O.P. received Rs. 7,00,000/- from the complainant on behalf of the aforesaid Medical Institution. It stands further established that the O.P. received the said money from the complainant on behalf of the Medical Institution but did not deposit the same with the said institution. Receiving money from the complainant with false assurance of payment of the same to a Medical Institution is kind of unfair trade practice and this unfair trade practice is now seen to have been perpetrated by the O.P. The O.P. will have to refund the money received from the complainant and also to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant has not been able to file money receipt for Rs. 14,00,000/- as per demand by him as refund amount. He has only filed money receipt of Rs. 7,00,000/- and therefore is deemed to be entitled to refund of Rs. 7,00,000/- only.         

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the complainant case be and the same is decreed ex-parte against the O.P. with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 7,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till full realization thereof. He is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, within a month of this order failing which the compensation amount and the cost amount will bear interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till full realization thereof.  

Register-in-charge of this forum is to supply copy of judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned.           

I / We agree                                              Member                            President

          Dictated and corrected by me

    Member