District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

                                            PETITIONER

                                                  VS.

                                          OPPOSITE PARTY

                                        Complaint Case No.CC/65/2022

                                (Date of Filing:-13.04.2022)

   Sk. Mohosin Ali,

  Chawkbazar, No. 2 Sonatuli Lane, P.O. Chowkbazaar,

  P.S.   Chinsurah, District Hooghly, Pin:- 712103.         …..complainant

 The Managing Director, Smart School Education Pvt. Ltd.,

 Plot No. A, 11A, Block-A, Sector-63, P.O. and P.S. Noida

District:- Ghaziabad, Uttarpradesh Pin:-201301.            …..opposite party

Before:-

            Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President

            Mrs. Minakshi Chakraborty, Member

            Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

PRESENT:

Dtd. 17. 01. 2023

                                  Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

The instant case filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 originates from the grievances of the complainant in the matter of remitting an amount of Rs.90,000/- against a proposed purchase of an educational kit from the opposite party as mentioned in the heading of this order and subsequent non-receipt of the said kit in spite of repeated persuasion.

The fact of the case is that the complainant claimed to be a private tutor, having been impressed by the advertisement of the opposite party in their website and with a purpose of assuring better education through webinar among the students of his locality, placed an order for ‘Smart school TM ICL’, a so called e-coaching assistance and support for smart school education. The complainant ‘on good faith’, claims to have sent an amount of Rs.90,000/- on 04.10.2018 by ‘account to account transfer’.

However, even after lapse of a substantial period, neither the product nor any sort of communication from the opposite party’s end was received by the complainant.

Successive legal notices sent at different points of time yielded no positive result.

The complainant thus approached to this Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the opposite party to make refund of the amount of Rs.90,000/-purportedly paid in advance, to the opposite party against the proposed purchase of the educational kit, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost.

The complainant is a resident within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/- Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Decision with reasons:- Before going into the merit of the case it will be worth mentioning that the opposite party did not appear before this Commission even on a single occasion, in spite of proper service of notice. Resultantly, the case runs ex parte against the opposite party.  Materials on records are perused.

The glaring feature of the instant case is that the entire payment of Rs.90,000/- appears to have been made by one Sri Ranajit Kundu who has no relation with this case. The complainant does not appear to have made any payment against the said proposed purchase of the educational kit.

  In view of the above and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

Thus, this Commission cannot find any cause of action for filing the present complaint by the present complainant.  Hence, it is

                                             ORDERED

that the complaint case no.65/2022 be and the same is dismissed ex parte.  

However there is no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.