By : SMT BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The gist of the complaint case is that the complainant took admission in Edulink Study Center in the course MSc. In Zoology. The center is under Vinayaka Mission University. The Part I examination was held in 2011 and the complainant got the mark sheet but spelling of his name in the mark sheet was not correct. The spelling of his name is Sanjoy but it was spelled as Sanjay. The complainant reported the matter to the OP who was in charge of the educational center. The OP gave assurance for correcting the name and for that reason he took back the mark sheet but did not correct it. The Part II examination is not held till now. The complainant asked to the OP as to the fate of Part I examination who promised to complete the course through any other study center or if he fails to do so, he would return back the money. The OP also detained his original certificate of Environmental Science which he passed in December, 2012. The complainant handed over the OP a sum of Rs. 32,000/- . The complainant is an Assistant Teacher by profession. In order to develop his qualification for special increment in his profession he wanted to complete the course but now the OP is threatening him to file false criminal case for last five years as the complainant wanted back the money.. Under the prevailing circumstances, the complainant has come up before this Forum for proper redressal.
The OP contested the case by filing written version. He denied all the material allegations of the complaint petition and contended inter alia that the copy of document filed in the case is forged one and the case is filed for wrongful gain and is the quench of previous grudge. It is the specific case of this OP that the complainant was admitted in B Sc.(Bio) in the Panskura Banamali College under Vidyasagar University in 2000 and he passed the same course in 2003. After graduation the complainant left the Banamali College for taking admission in MA in history under the same University. Both of them were SFI supporters and were in regular co-ordination with the party affairs. Thereafter the OP came to know that the complainant got a teacher ship in a school under PS Daspur and now he is engaged as an Assistant Teacher in Kultikri Kshirodamoyee High School. The OP opened the center named Edulink Study Center at Kanakpur in the year 2009 for his livelihood. Complainant joined the center as a teacher in 2011 on contract basis in lieu of monthly payment from the OP on further condition that half of the profit of the center would be distributed among all the teachers of the center including the complainant and rest half would remain with the proprietor, OP. The OP subsequently came to know that the complainant was selling the notes of the center in personal capacity without consent or knowledge of the center for illegal gain. A dispute cropped up between the OP and the complainant when the matter came to light. In consequence of the bitterness over the issue the complainant was compelled to leave the center. Besides that he claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the OP and being refused, the complainant threatened to give a good lesson to the OP . It is further case of this OP that he paid all the dues to the complainant as his share of profit from the center. The OP claimed that the documents filed by the complainant is forged one.
On the above premised the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case as there is no grounds for initiation of this case by the complainant.
On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the point need be discussed is (1)whether the complainant petition is maintainable and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint petition.
Decision for Reasons.
Both the points are taken up together for consideration as those are inter linked and can be dealt with properly.
We have perused all the documents filed by both the parties and also heard arguments advanced by ld. advocate for both the parties.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant has referred a decision reported in 2015 (I) CPR 611 (NC) wherein it has been held that fictitious Educational Institutions must be dealt with iron hands. This observation of the Hon’ble National Commission clearly implied that the complaint is maintainable.
Admittedly the complainant paid the charges for sitting in the examination and also he got the mark sheet for the part I from the OP. He has alleged that his name has not been properly spelled in the mark sheet and no certificate was issued to him in respect of the Part I Examination although he deposited the necessary cost.
We have perused the written version of the OP very carefully and it appears therefrom that the OP has given a story that the complainant has filed all the forged documents to strengthen his case and that the complainant was engaged by him as an Assistant teacher of his Institution in lieu of monthly payment but it has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence. On perusal of the mark sheet filed by the complainant it appears that his name has been spelled as SANJOY PAL whereas the complainant has signed his name as SANJAY PAL. So the plea of complainant that he returned the mark sheet of 1st Semi star to the OP for correcting spelling of his name appears to be believable.
So, it is very much clear that the OP had certainly deficiency in service as he is silent in the matter of making correction of the spelling of the name of the complainant in the mark sheet nor he has issued certificate to the complainant although he passed the Part I Examination and took all necessary costs from him.
We have perused all the documents furnished by the complainant and also the OP.
The complainant has prayed for Rs. 32,000/- , litigation cost and compensation.
But after perusing the complaint made by the complainant we find that the complainant is entitled to get Rs 32,000/-, litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the OP.
Hence it is
ORDERED
That the CC No. 336/16 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
The OP is directed to issue certificate of Part I examination to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The OP is also directed to pay Rs. 32,000/-, litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/-to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the OP will be liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day till full realization of the total amount which would be payable in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copy of this judgement be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
