West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/52/2016

Tarun Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The M.D., Gourav Institute of Management Science - Opp.Party(s)

Soumen Roy

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

   

Complaint Case No.52/2016

 

             Sri  Tarun Kumar Das, S/o Gobinda Chandra Das of Vidyasagarpur, P.O. Inda, P.S.

             Kharagpur (T), District - Paschim Medinipur. …………..…………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

             The M.D., Gourav Institute of Management Science, Medinipur Centre, Sekhpura,

             Station Road, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. kotwali, Dist- Paschim Medinipur....….Opp. Party.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Dulal Chandra Roy, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Ashoke Kumar Mondal, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -05/09/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a resident within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the opposite party runs a institute named and styled as Gourav Institute of Management Science within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Opposite party-institute provides various educational courses e.g. M.B.A., B.B.A., B.C.A., Hotel Management and Computer education  and their institute is affiliated under Punjab Technical University.  Complainant’s daughter Maheswata Das, after passing her Higher Secondary examination, was admitted in the Institute of the opposite party in B.B.A. course and they guaranteed 100% job placement after receiving fixed requisite fees and other charges on 06/08/2010.  In the year 2015, the daughter of the complainant passed the final examination but the opposite party-Institute failed to give the mark sheet and certificate and they also refused to placement of job.  On

Contd……………..P/2

 

( 2 )

 11/03/2016, a legal notice was therefore sent by the complainant through Advocate Soumen Roy to the opposite party.  In spite of receipt of the said letter, the opposite party gave no reply.  Due to non-supply of mark sheet and job placement, the complainant has suffered irreparable loss and mental agony.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to make payment of Rs.4,00,000/- for deficiency in service and cost of the proceeding.

                  The opposite party has contested this case by filling a written objection.  

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the institute of the opposite party is only an affiliated study centre of Punjab Technical University and it is only meant for the students to take necessary coaching/admission for completion of the course and to make them enable to appear in the examination.  But the institution of the opposite party is not at all authorized to issue mark sheet , pass certificate etc. to any student who studied under the guidance of the institution of the opposite party.  Punjab Technical University is the sole authority to issue mark sheet, pass certificate etc. to the students.  Complainant’s daughter, after completion of five other semesters, duly got her mark sheet, pass certificate directly from Punjab Technical University and not from the institution of the opposite party and so she was very much accustomed with the procedure for getting the mark sheet, pass certificate while she collected her earlier semester’s mark sheet, pass certificate straight way from Punjab Technical University. So the allegation leveled against the opposite party regarding deficiency in service does not arise.  It is further stated by the opposite party that he came to know that the complainant’s daughter has already collected her final examination mark sheet directly from Punjab Technical University on 09/07/2016.  It is further stated that the institution of the opposite party though speaks about job placement to students after completion of course but the students in order to secure their such achievement had to fulfill the other requisite guidelines of the institution by their helpful cooperation.  Neither the complainant nor his daughter ever thought for it for any manner.  Rather, she has already got her admitted in M.B.A. course and so her claim of job placement does not arise at all.  Opposite party therefore claims dismissal of the case with cost.

 

                                                                 Point for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ? 

 

Contd……………..P/3

 

( 3 )

Decision with reasons

        For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

       At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party has adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them in this case.

      Facts remain admitted in this case that the opposite party runs a institution named at styled as M.D. Gourav Institute of Management Science, Medinipur Centre and the daughter of the complainant Mahaswata Das was admitted in the institute of the opposite party in B.B.A. course  and in the year 2015,  she also passed the final examination of B.B.A. course.  It is the allegation of the complainant that although the daughter of the complainant passed the final examination but the opposite party-institute failed to provide mark sheet and certificate and they also refused to give her placement of job.  As against this, it is the case of the opposite party, as made out in it’s w/o that the opposite party-institute is not at all authorized to issue mark sheet, pass certificate, etc. to the students but it is an affiliated study centre of Punjab Technical University who is the sole authority to issue mark sheet, pass certificate, etc. to the students.  In paragraph -13 of the w/o, opposite party has stated that the daughter of the complainant has already collected her final examination mark sheet from PTU directly on 09/07/2016.  There is no denial on behalf of the complainant regarding the said fact of collection of mark sheet directly from the PTU on 09/07/2016 by the daughter of the complainant.  Complainant has also not produced any document to show that the opposite party institute was duty  bound to supply mark sheet, pass certificate, etc. to the students.  In that view of the matter and since it is not denied that  the daughter of the complainant has already collected her mark sheet from the PTU directly on 09/07/2016, so no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party regarding that point does arise.  Now about the question of placement of service, we find that the complainant produced no cogent evidence to show and to prove that the opposite party assured the complainant at the time of admission of her daughter in the institute of the opposite party that after completion of the course they will provide job for her. Moreover, we find from the written objection of the opposite party that in order to secure for job placement, a student has to fulfill requisite guidelines of the institution by their helpful cooperation but neither the complainant nor his daughter thought for it in any manner. Moreover, she has already admitted in M.B.A. course and as such her claim of job placement does not stand at all.  Complainant produced no document to show that his

Contd……………..P/4

 

( 4 )

daughter fulfilled requisite guidelines for securing job placement by the opposite party institute and that she applied for such job placement to the opposite party.  Therefore it cannot be held that there is any deficiency in service regarding such job placement on the part of the opposite party.

  In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

All the points are accordingly decided against the complainant.

In the result, the complaint case fails.   

                                                            

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                   that the complaint case no.52/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                        Sd/-B. Pramanik.                      Sd/- D. Sengupta.                     Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                             President                                    Member                                  President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur