Susanta Kumr Nath,

11, Golam Hossain Sordar Lane,

P.S. Shibpur,

Howrah – 711 102.------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

The Director,

Seacom Engineering College,

Joladhulagori via Andul Mouri,

Howrah – 711 302.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  It is a case of an unfortunate father, named Sri Susanta Kr. Nath, who could

pay with all hardships the initial costs for getting admission of his son, named Pritam Kumar Nath at the O.P.’s institution in Mechanical Engineering Course on 13-08-2012 for the academic session 2012-13 on payment of Rs. 52,000/- in all but was compelled to withdraw his son’s name due to financial crisis vide payment receipts dated 01-08-2012 and 13-08-2012. Although the complainant was assured verbally by the O.P. that some kind of free studentship could be arranged for his son’s study in that institution but it was not done by O.P. Ultimately, on 10-10-2012,  his son, Pritam wrote a letter requesting for such free-studentship for himself, otherwise, his study could not be continued was also informed through that letter. But O.P. remained silent on that issue and no reply was given to the complainant. Again, finding no other alternative, complainant submitted one letter to O.P. on 30-11-2012  requesting them to cancel his son’s name from the student list as he is not in a position to pay further huge amount for the entire course of mechanical engineering course along with a request to pay him back the entire initial amount of Rs. 52,000/-,  so deposited by the complainant. But O.P. paid no heed to his request. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant case praying for a direction to be given upon the O.P. to pay back the entire amount of Rs. 52,000/- to the complainant.

2.                  Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

3.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.                  It is the specific plea of the O.P. that as the student. Pritam Kumar Nath,

attended eleven theory classes and six lab classes, xerox copy of attendance register has been annexed, and on being vacant by Pritam, the vacant seat could not be filled up by the O.P., complainant is entitled to get the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- only and nothing more than that. Further, it is also contended by O.P. that as they did not avail themselves of any ‘Management Quota’, in their private college, there is no scope for free-studentship and O.P. has also   annexed one letter dated 04-06-2012 written by the Chairma, Managing Trustee, Shri Anish  Chakraborty on behalf of O.P. to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education,  Government of West Bengal. From that letter it is evident that O.P. did not avail any Management Seat / quota as well as any 10% or 5% free-studentship offer. This being the position, which was very much within the knowledge of the O.P., why at all any verbal assurance, was given to the complainant and/or his student regarding any free-studentship. An aspiring for engineering course student should not have been given this kind of assurance, it certainly destroys the mental strength of a student. Student took admission on 13-08-2013 and with the hope of getting free-studentship he did some theory and practical classes. Even O.P. did not care to give any reply to the letter dated 10-10-2012 written by the complainant. Now, O.P. is taking the plea that as the student has attended classes and the vacant seat could not be filled up, entire admission fee of Rs. 52,000/- could not be paid back, which is not tenable. O.P. here, is an educational institution which should be always run on a fair terms and conditions. Here, in spite of having knowledge about the contents of the letter dated 04-06-2012, O.P. gave all false assurance regarding free-studentship, which is nothing but gross deficiency on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, the case succeeds with costs.   

            Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  136 of 2013 ( HDF 136 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with   costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is  directed to refund Rs. 52,000/- to the complainant  along with a compensation of  Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost.

      That the o.p. is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 55,000/- within one month from this order i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah                                      

                                          .