DATE OF FILING : 29.10.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 04.12.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 14.12.2015.
Sri Ram Nath Jha,
son of Shib Chandra Jha,
residing at 18, Kalu Pada Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah,
PIN 711106.………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Institute of Computer Accounts ( ICA )
of no. 27, Netaji Subhas Road, 4th floor, Kolkata,
PIN 700001.
being represented by its authorized signatory, ICA.
2. The Institute of Computer Accounts ( ICA )
Centre Director, Howrah Centre,
of 20, Dobson Road, Shree Nikatan Building, 1st floor,
near Howrah A.C. Market, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah,
PIN 711101. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Ram Nath Jha, against the o.ps., Institute of Computer Accounts ( ICA ), Kolkata, and its Centre Director, Howrah Centre, praying for a direction upon the o.ps. for return of the amount deposited by him and also Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a student and being unemployed with physical disability to the extent of 60% approached the o.p. learning centre for knowing computer operating system. The o.p., Institute of Computer Accounts, a Unit of ICI Infotech ( P ) Ltd., having its centre at Howrah and office at Kolkata. The petitioner was informed that the total charges for the said computer course was Rs. 30,787/- and the course would start on 21.01.2014. But the Howrah Centre did not care for beginning of the admission and training. The o.p. assured the petitioner that for his physical condition his installment money would be reduced. But the petitioner has been victim of fraud and unfair trade practice as the o.p. institution willfully and intentionally failed to discharge their duty as well as obligation to complete the course. The petitioner suffered loss due to the act of the o.ps. which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The petitioner also lost one year of his valuable time. He served a notice on the o.ps. through his counsel and then filed this case.
- The o.p. no. 1 being the Institute of Computer Accounts ( ICA ) contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the o.p. no. 1 is a leading institution in India in the field of imparting better education and training and doing so far the last 60 years. It has its franchisee office at 20, Dobson Road, Shree Nikatan Building at Howrah being o.p. no. 2 and o.p. no. 1 grant a licence for willing and interested firms across the country who are ready to fulfill the contractual obligation. . The petitioner is neither a consumer nor the o.ps. have any deficiency in service. The petitioner took admission in the course but without depositing the sum of Rs. 30,787/- and the entire matter has been death with o.p. no. 2 and not by o.p. no. 1 and he deposited only Rs. 11,736/- out of the total fees of Rs. 27,300/- and there is still outstanding of Rs. 13,606/- which is due from the petitioner for the said course. The o.p. also filed documents showing attendance of the petitioner and also his payments. The petitioner filed this case without any fault on the part of o.p. no. 1 and the case be dismissed against o.p. no. 1.
- The o.p. no. 2 filed a separate written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that under the o.p. no. 1, the o.p. no. 2 is a franchisee and this case is not maintainable and barred by limitation. The petitioner did not attend the class properly and his attendance sheet would show that he attended the class only upto 30%. It is admitted by o.p. no. 2 that the petitioner got admitted deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part o.p. and the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for and the case be dismissed against them. The petitioner has also deposited his monthly installments for course fees and he studied in part. The petitioner also remained absent and his attendance sheet showing 30% present. There was actually no lapse on the part of the o.ps. So the case be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner, Ram Nath Jha, submitted that being an handicapped person to the extent of 60% disability he approached the o.ps. for continuing one year course in the field of computer accounting and he joined the course at o.p. no. 2 being the Howrah Franchisee of o.p. no. 1. The o.ps. could make him complete the course and so he filed this case. The petitioner submitted before the Forum that the o.ps. stated that he made a total payment of Rs. 30,787/- and took admission in the course but he filed no document to that effect. The o.p. submitted that the course for the programme was Rs. 7,300/- and not Rs. 30,787/- and the petitioner made payments of his fees being the lesser amount which was not received by o.p. no. 1 but by o.p. no. 2. The o.p. no. 2 submitted here that the petitioner was very irregular and he had very poor in attending classes and so he could not make himself eligible for sitting in the examination. The documents filed by the o.ps. showing that the petitioner paid only Rs. 11,736/- and the outstanding was Rs. 13,606/-. Thus in the instant case there is a claim versus counter claim by the o.ps. It is the established principle of law that students are notconsumers in general but barring the cases of admission, form fill up, holding examinationand declaring results. Inother cases the educational institution are service providers for the studentswho gets knowledge by depositing fees before the institution.
7. This Forum heard the counsel for both sides and the BNA filed by them and also scrutinized the petition and written version and the documents filed therein and find that the petitioner deposited only Rs. 17,487.64 p. and there is fee due of Rs. 13,187/-. Even though the petitioner submitted before theForum that he paid the entire sum ofRs. 30,787/- being the course fees. It is the case of the petitioner thathe could not complete the course due to negligence on the part of the o.ps. but the attendance register signed by the petitioner showing that he was almost absent on all the dates in the month of June, 2014 and on other months though he attended classes almost regularly in the month of February, 2014. The course fees sheet filed by the o.ps. showing that they received a sum of Rs. 11,736/- and the total due was Rs. 13,605/-actually and after the lapse of so many days, the said amount amounted to Rs. 13,187/-, actually the course fees was Rs. 27,300/-. In the instant case the petitioner joined the course and continued the same but due to latches on his part he could not complete the course and for the same he cannot put the blame either on the franchisee or theinstitute of computer accounts which is the parent body. In support of his case he filed his disability certificate and his eye card and it is seen from the document filed by him then that on four occasions he paid the fees being Rs. 6,587/- on 21.01.2014and Rs. 2,200/- each dates on three dates i.e., 01.02.2014 , 01.3.2014 and 01.4.2014. Out of the total course of fees ofRs. 30,787/- the same document filed by him showing that he has not yet paid half of the course fees and the documents filed by the o.p. showing that he has not attended classes regularly and attended only 30% of the classes and thus unable to sit for the examination for which the o.ps. cannot be held liable. He had not come before the Forum with clear hands rather he suppressed the facts and thus this Forum cannot give any relief to him when this Forum finds no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. who offered him to continue the course and he somehow missed the same. He approached the o.p. no. 1 who admitted him in the course and he continued the same with o.p. no. 2 being Howrah franchisee of o.p. no. 1 and his student code was given to him. His document proved the fact that he did not make the full payment of the course and now coming before the Forum to get back his money and also compensation for loss of time and such prayer is not tenable before a court of law as he would make any profit out of his own wrong and there is no deficiency on the part of the o.ps. as the petitioner attended classes only 30% by which he dig his own grave.
In the result, the claim case fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 562 of 2014 ( HDF 562 of 2014 ) be dismissed on contest without costs against the O.Ps.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
