Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh.........President.

The Complainant has filed the case against the O.Ps and praying for the following order/relief under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. 1986:

1. Direction against the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000/- to the Complainant which was paid by issuing two cheques in favour of them.
2. Direction against the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00000/- to the Complainant as compensation.
3. Interest pendentelite @ 18 % per annum on the amount which was paid by the Complainant to the OPs till making payment.
4. Cost of the proceeding.
5. Any other relief/ reliefs to which the Complainant is legally entitled.

BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. That the Complainant on 04.02.2018 went to Guwahati Assam to appear MAT Examination where she met an agent of OP No. 1 who was collecting mobile no. of the student who went to sit for the said examination likewise the agent collected the mobile no. of the Complainant and asked her to meet at the office of the OP No. 1 by saying that, he provided counseling for MBA Students.
2. That on 08.02.2018 one Mrs. Tanima sub-agent of Indranil Ghosh through WhatsApp asked the Complainant to meet them at the office of the OP No. 1.
3. That on 08.02.2018 the Complainant along with her father went to the OP No. 1 to meet with Indranil Ghosh and Mrs. Tanima where Indranil Ghosh asked the Complainant to go for GDPI (Group Discussion of Personal Interviews) of few colleges but the Complainant replied that she would wait for her result in MAT Examination and then would apply for any college but Indranil Ghosh and Mrs. Tanima forced the Complainant to sit for GDPI saying that, there would be no seat available, the result of MAT examination was declared and she would not be able to get admission in any college and Indranil Ghosh further suggested that, Bengal Institute of Business Studies (BIBS) the OP No. 2 would be good as it was budget friendly according to financial capacity of the Complainant and they (Indranil Ghosh and Mrs. Tanima) replied that, OP No. 2 had got affiliation from AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education under Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Department, Government Of India ).
4. That on 27.02.2018 Indranil Ghosh and Mrs. Tanima arranged for GDPI of the Complainant and she also got a call from the office of the OP No. 2 having the link with Siliguri office of the OP No. 1 to sit for personal interview in the office of the OP No. 1 through Skype and after the interview was over Indranil Ghosh instructed the Complainant to arrange for admission fees of Rs. 44,000/- and it was stated to the Complainant that, if she claimed the money back she would have to apply before one month of BIBS Class was started i.e. on 15.07.02018.
5. That on 02.03.2018 the Complainant received a call from the OP no. 2 that she had cleared the PI (Personal Interview) and on 05.03.2018 the Complainant received hardcopy of the same and since then, Indranil Ghosh and others forced the Complainant to pay the said processing fee and in the mean time the Complainant received calls from different placement center of colleges for admission and the Complainant came to know that, the BIBS (OP No. 2) is not AICTE approved.
6. That on 09.03.2018 the father of the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 34,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the OP No. 2 by issuing two cheques which were handed over in the Office of the OP No. 1 to Indranil Ghosh  in front of Mrs. Tanima.
7. That on 18.04.2018 the Complainant decided to drop the plan of  doing MBA from the OP No. 2 being confirmed that, the same was not affiliated to AICTE and intimated the same to the education counselor of BIBS, Mr. Arindam Sil and requested him to return the cheque amount of Rs. 44,000/- when Arindam Sil asked the Complainant to send an email of the same which she did on the same day, after few days in the month of April 2018 when the Complainant called him he refused to return the aforesaid amount.
8. That on 18.04.2018, the Complainant got a call from Mrs. Tanima who asked her to meet in the office of the OP No. 1 on 28.04.2018 and on that day Indranil Ghosh and Mrs. Tanima told the Complainant and her father that, she did not do the right thing by intimating the OP No. 2 and they refused to return the cheque amount.
9. That, subsequently the Complainant tried to get back the cheque amount but failed and subsequently she sent legal notice to the OPs on 13.09.2018 by registered post with AD requesting them to refund the sum of Rs. 44,000/- to the Complainant along with interest and also asked them a compensation of Rs. 2,00000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice but despite receiving the notice they made no reply.
10. That both the OP No. 1 and 2 misguided and mislead the Complainant by the acts and activities showing their inefficiency in service knowing fully well that, the OP No. 2 was not affiliated with AICTE and they played with the career of the Complainant causing mental agony, harassment by spoiling her academic career and they forced to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000/- and ultimately refused to return the same in spite of repeated request.
11. That the cause of action arose on 07.03.2018 when the Complainant as per instruction of the OP No. 1 and 2 issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 44,000/- and subsequently on 18.04.2018 when the Complainant requested to repay the cheque amount and the OP No. 1 and 2 or their main refused to return the said sum of money to the Complainant and on the date of issue of legal notice dated 13.09.2018 and the cause of action is still continuing.
12. That the instant Commission has ample jurisdiction to entertain the case and the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the definition of the Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

To prove the case the Complainant has filed the following documents:-

1. Admit Card of MAT Examination at Guwahati (Annexure I).
2. Paper of Education World Society (Annexure II).
3. MAT Score (Annexure III).
4. Certificate of Vidyasagar University. (Annexure IV).
5. Letter from BIBS dated 27.02.2018. (Annexure V).
6. Cheque for BIBS Institute LLP for Rs. 34000/-. (Annexure VI).
7. Cheque for BIBS Institute LLP for Rs. 10,000/-. (Annexure VII).
8. Confirmation of Admission on PGPIBM and MBA program 2018-2020. (Annexure VIII).
9. Acceptance of Cheque by BIBS. (Annexure IX).
10. Prayer for refund of processing fees. (Annexure X).
11. Student Identity Card (Annexure XI).
12. Voter ID Card. (Annexure XII).
13. Lawyer’s Notice dated 13.09.2018(Annexure XIII).
14. Postal receipt for Registered with A.D. (2 Nos) (Annexure XIV).
15. Postal Track Report (3 Nos) (Annexure XV).

Notice was issued from this Commission which was duly served upon both the OPs. Despite receiving the notice, both the OPs did not turn up before this Commission. Hence, the matter has been proceeding ex-parte against the OPs.  

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of complainant and on perusal of the written complaint and documents filed by the complainant the following points are to be considered by this Commission.

                                    Points for consideration   

1. Whether the Complainants is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 1986?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Principal O.Ps. as alleged by the Complainants?
4. Is the Complainants are entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of their Complaint?

Decision with Reasons

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

In order to prove the case the complainant has filed written deposition as PW 1 in the form of an affidavit and she also filed another evidence in the form of an affidavit sworn by Kshiti Prakash Purkayastha as PW 2. In the written evidence of the PW 1 and PW 2 it reveals that, they have categorically corroborated the contents of the complaint who specifically stated on which day the OPs asked the complainant to pay the said sum of Rs. 44,000/-. They have also stated that, Mr. Arindam Sil who was the Education Counselor of the OP no. 2 disclosed the complainant to return the sum of Rs. 44,000/- to the complainant and requested her to send an email to them. The complainant has also specifically stated in the complaint as well as in her written deposition that on several occasions she tried her level best to get back the sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the OPs but they did not pay the same.

At the time of hearing of argument Ld. Advocate of the complainant submits the complainant has been able to prove this case against the OPs not only by filing evidence of the PW 1 and PW 2 but also the complainant has proved this case by filing several documents including the photocopy of two cheques by virtue of which she was able to prove the fact that, the sum of Rs. 44,000/- was duly received by the OPs.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and on perusal of the complaint, written deposition of the PW 1 and 2 and also on perusal of the documents it reveals that, the complainant has been able to prove the fact that, she was compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000/- to the OPs for getting admission for MBA Examination through OP No. 2 which had got affiliation from AICTE. Ld. Advocate of the complainant has also submits that the complainant came to know from  several sources that, the OP No. 2 BIBS is not approved by AICTE and by misleading the  complainant the said sum of money taken by the OPs. he also argued that, the complainant sent legal demand notice to the OPs requesting to refund back the sum of Rs. 44,000/- which was taken from the complainant and also requested them to pay a sum Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation but they paid no heed to that legal notice by making any reply. Ld. Advocate of the complainant during argument also submits that, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for as there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs who by misleading the complainant was compelled her to pay the said sum of money.

Considering the unchallenged evidence of the complainant (PW 1 and PW 2) and considering the documents annexed with the complaint we are of the view that, the complaint has been able to prove this case against the OPs and she is entitled to get relief as the complainant has been able to prove the fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d,

That the instant consumer case being no. 20/2019 is hereby allowed on ex-parte against the OPs but in part.

The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000/-( Rupees Forty four thousand) only to the complainant which was received from the complainant.

The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only to the complainant as compensation and for causing mental pain agony as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs towards the complainant.

The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the complainant as cost of legal proceedings.

The OPs are further directed to pay  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this commission.

The OPs are directed to pay the said sum of money to the complainant within 45 days from this day failing which they will have to pay interest @10% per annum till making payment of the entire amount.

Let a copy of this final order be given to the Complainant free of cost.