DATE OF FILING : 24-12-2013,
DATE OF S/R : 28-01-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-06-2014.
Pratyush Dwivedi.
son of Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dwivedi,
residing at Shantikung, flat no. D-203, Round Tank Lane,
P.S. Howrah, District –Howrah,
PIN – 711 101. .-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Indian Bank,
carrying on banking business
at 27/2, G.T. Road (S), P.S. Howrah,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
2. The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations,
service through the Deputy Secretary,
having its office at Pragati House ( 3rd floor ),
47-48, Nehru Place,
New Delhi – 110 505.-----------------------------------Proforma 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. Complainant, Pratyush Dwivedi, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,
1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. no. 1 to pay an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs towards compensation for causing severe loss and damage to the career of the complainant with tremendous mental pain and agony along with other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant, being a very meritorious student,
obtained more than 90% in many subjects in his school leaving examinations, known as Indian School Certificate Examination i.e., ISC Examination in 2013 duly held by The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, herein proforma o.p. vide Annexure ‘C’. As an intelligent student, he was also preparing for WBJEE ete. and imparting private coaching in different reputed academic organizations vide Annexure ‘B’. But it was totally shocking for the complainant to see the marks of two science subjects being physics and chemistry, which were even below 65% in ISC result. For this reason, he ranked very low in WBJEE. So, he opted for the rechecking of those two papers by way of sending a demand draft amounting to Rs. 1,600/- within 7th June, 2013 vide Annexure running page nos. 18 & 29. And complainant was quite confident that the proper rechecking would definitely improve his marks in between 90% - 95%. But vide letter dated 06-06-2013, proforma o.p. informed the concerned school authority where complainant was a student, that as the demand draft being no. 740346 did not have any date of issue, it could not be accepted as the fee for rechecking of papers of the complainant vide Annexure ‘D’. And complainant was asked to return it after doing the needful. But the said letter was received by complainant’s school authority on 12-06-2013 vide Annexure ‘D’. when the last date of submitting the form for rechecking of papers already expired. And the papers could not be rechecked. Being an unfortunate student, complainant had to accept his ill fate due to gross negligence on the part of the o.p. no. 1. Complainant bought the demand draft of Rs. 1,600/- from o.p. no. 1 on 03-06-2013 on payment of Rs. 45/- as service charge vide Annexure running page 18. But due to utter negligence on the part of o.p. no. 1, complainant’s bright future has been severely damaged and he had to study. B.C. Math ( H ). Thereafter, by legal notice dated 19-07-2013 complainant asked for the supply of photo copy of the said demand draft from proforma o.p. vide Annexure running pages 28 – 31. And proforma o.p. also sent the photo copy of the said demand draft by the letter dated 31-07-2013 vide Annexure ‘G’. Annexing that photo copy, complainant sent a legal notice dated 05-08-2013 to o.p. no. 1 asking for the payment of compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- for such negligent deed vide Annexure ‘H’. And on receipt of such legal notice, o.p. no. 1 also sent one reply on 13-09-2013 vide Annexure ‘I’ denying all allegations of the complainant. Being frustrated and aggrieved, complainant has filed this instant petition before this Forum praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Notices were served upon o.p. no. 1 and proforma o.p. no. 2. Both of them appeared and filed written versions separately. Accordingly, case heard on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Proforma o.p. has reiterated the same thing vide para 11 i.e., as the demand draft having no. 740346 did not bear any date of issue, it could not be encashed, thereby the payment of fee for reviewing the papers of physics and chemistry of the complainant remained unpaid. And review procedure could not be taken by proforma o.p. The complainant also has not prayed for any relief from proforma o.p. Complainant bought demand draft on 03-06-2013 and it must have reached the council i.e., proforma o.p. before 06-06-2013 as on 06-06-2013 they sent a letter to the concerned school authority with a direction to send the draft again with a valid date. But there was hardly any time to comply with the direction by the complainant as the last date of submission of form for review was on 7th June, 2013 vide Annexure ‘D’. But o.p. no. 1 in their written version has categorically denied the fact of absence of date of issue in the demand draft in question. The said draft was cancelled by the complainant on 18-06-2013 and o.p. no. 1 has annexed the xerox copy of the said demand draft. But it is surprising that proforma o.p. which is a renowned educational council conducting all India level examination like ISC. Why they should at all return the draft if it was properly dated. It is a common practice of all academic councils, universities and secondary boards to take certain fee for review of papers. Had it been properly dated, proforma o.p. must not have returned the same. Because they know very well, for such negligence & malpractice, they would have to face a lot of legal consequences. And on the other hand, it is our common knowledge that banks like o.p. no. 1 quite often do this kind of mistakes for which people suffer a lot. This is due to their negligent attitude towards their duty. The concerned official of o.p. no. 1 is entirely responsible for such mistake. This kind of negligence has really damaged the bright future of a student like complainant. The gravity of such mistakes is immense and it should not be taken lightly. The concerned official of o.p. no. 1 ought to have been far more careful in discharging his duty which he did not. Accordingly, o.p. no. 1 is found to be deficient in service. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 449 of 2013 ( HDF 449 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the o.p. no. 1 and dismissed against proforma o.p. without cost.
That the o.p. no 1 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order as compensation. .
That o.p. no. 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.
That the o.p. no 1 is further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 55,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.
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.
