West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/120/2011

Ms. Olivia Mukherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal, Midnapore Law College - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No. 120/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 23/04/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. P. K. Sarkar.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. D. Sengupta.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Self.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. Chakraborty.

            Ms. Olivia Mukherjee, residing at 12, B. T. Road,  P.O.-Titagarh,  Dist-North 24

            Parganas, Pin-700119………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Principal, Midnapore Law College,  P.O.-Vidyasagar University, P. S.-Kotwali,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721102
2. The Secretary, Midnapore Law College,  P.O.-Vidyasagar University, P. S.-Kotwali,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721102…………………Ops.

            The complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-

            The complainant is an ex-student of Midnapore Law College. She got admitted in the three 3 years’ LLB course of the college on 01/01/2005. At the time of her admission she paid library caution deposit of Rs.1,000/- along with other prescribed fees for the course. After completion of the course she was given college leaving/character certificate on 15/09/2010. On 21/12/2010 she surrendered her library card and the librarian issued the library clearance certificate dated 21/12/2010. Then the complainant claimed refund of library caution deposit of Rs.1,000/- by submitting an application along with the library clearance certificate before the cashier of the college. But the cashier offered only Rs.500/- against Rs.1,000/- deposited by the complainant  as library  caution money. The Complainant refused to accept Rs.500/- offered by the cashier and submitted an application to the Principal for refund of Rs.1,000/- deposited by her as library caution money. But the principal did not give any reply to such application submitted by the complainant on 21/12/2010. As such on 23/02/2011 the complainant lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur, who referred matter to the Principal, Midnapore Law College, for redressal of grievance of the complainant. The principal of the college informed the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business

Contd………….P/2

- ( 2 ) -

Practices, Paschim Medinipur, that the complainant was aware of the fact that the Library caution deposit would be refunded after deduction for the loss/damage of the library properties, on completion of the course. On receipt of the copy of the reply given by the Principal of the college, the complainant sought for the assessment report and assessment records from the Principal, through the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur, and in reply the Principal sent the letter dated 22/06/2011 along with certain documents, which were said to have little relevance to justify deduction of Rs.500/- from the library caution deposit of the complainant. As such the complainant filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency of service on part of the Ops, with prayer for issuance of direction upon the Ops. to refund Rs.1,000/- deposited by the complainant as library caution money with up to date interest thereon, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for her harassment and to pay the cost of litigation  to the complainant.

             The Ops contested the case by filing their W/O contending inter alia that the Midnapore Law College is neither engaged in any business not provides any service to the students, within the meaning of  the Consumer Protection Act, and as such the instant complaint against the Ops. is not maintainable before this Forum, that the cashier of the college rightly offered to pay Rs.500/- against the complainant’s  claim for refund of the library caution deposit, after deducting Rs.500/- for  loss/damage of the library properties as par resolution dated 15/03/2008 passed by the governing body of the college; that, since the assessment of loss/damage of the library properties caused by a particular student cannot be assessed, so 50% of the library caution deposit was to be deducted for overall loss/damage to the library properties; that the Midnapore Law College being a self financed private law college is guided by its own  rules framed by the governing body of the college and the complainant must abide by the rule framed by the governing body of the college in the matter of refund of the library  caution deposit; and that there was no deficiency-in-service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. as alleged by the complainant and the complainant unnecessary the sought the intervention  of the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur as well as this Forum in the matters complained of, without any justification. Accordingly, the Ops sought for dismissal of the complaint.   

     The points for decisions are :

     (1)Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the section   2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?

     (2)Whether the Ops. were deficient in service or guilty of unfair trade practices  within  the meaning of section 2 (1)(g) read with section 2(1)(0) of the C. P. Act, 1986 ?  

      (3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for ? 

Contd………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

Decisions with reasons:

Point No. 1

              The complainant filed the instant complaint against the Principal and the Secretary of Medinipur Law College alleging their deficiency in service for their refusal to refund of the entire amount of library caution money of Rs.1, 000/- deposited by the complainant at the time of her admission.  The Ops contended inter alia that the instant complaint against them is not maintainable before this Forum as the Ops. i,e. the college authorities, are neither engaged in any business nor provide any service to the students within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Admittedly, the Midnapore Law College is a self financed private institution and the college is imparting education in law on payment of prescribed fees by the students. The question as to whether the act of imparting education by any educational institution  on receipt of fees, can be considered as service as defined under section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act, 1986, was examined and answered affirmatively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lacknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta, as well as  by Delhi D.C.R.C. in case of Apeejay school Vs. M.K Sangal (1993) II CPR 62, by Maharashtra State Commission in Abol Pacheco Gracias Vs. Principal Bharat Vidyaputh College of Engineering, and by Tamil Nadu commission in S. Venkatapathy Vs. the Principal Adhyaman College of Engineering.  So it must be held that the complainant was a consumer of the Ops as the later was engaged in service within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act, 1986 by way of  imparting law education to the complainant and others for consideration in the form of fees.

Point Nos. 2 & 3.

              Admittedly the complainant was an ex-student of Midnapore law college and she deposited Rs.1, 000/- as library caution money at the time of her admission in the college. The copy of the receipt marked Ext.-5 disclosed that the complainant deposited Rs.1,000/- on 01/01/2005 which was refundable within one year of the completion of the course or after three year of admission whichever is later. The copy of the fee structure for the year 2004-05 marked Ext.-3 revealed that the library caution money would be refunded after deduction for causing loss/damage etc. of library properties, on completion of the course. It is not disputed that the complainant claimed refund of the library caution money of Rs.1,000/- after completion of her LLB course, but the cashier of the college offered to refund Rs.500/- only deducting Rs.500/- for causing loss/damage of the library properties. The complainant refused to accept Rs.500/- and claimed refund of entire sum of Rs.1,000/- deposited by her as library caution money, by filing an application before the Principal of the college, but the same was not entertained. It is also not disputed that, subsequently the complainant lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair

Contd………….P/4

- ( 4 ) -

Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur, and in response to the notice issued by the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur, the principal of the Midnapore Law college intimated that the complainant was offered Rs.500/- after deduction of Rs.500/- for loss/damage of the library properties as mention on the overleaf of the caution money deposit receipt, and that she refused to accept refund of Rs.500/-   after deduction of Rs.500/- as notified by the notice dated 10/2/2010 (marked Ext.14) issued by the director of the Midnapore Law College, wherein it was mentioned  that 50% of the library caution money would be deducted from the library caution deposit for wear and tear, at the time of  refunding the same. According to the complainant, there was no justification for deduction of Rs.500/- from the library caution deposit at the time of refunding the same and as such the Ops should be directed to refund entire sum of Rs.1,000/- deposited by her as library caution money  with up-to-date interest thereon and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for her harassment.

             It revealed from the copy of the fee structure marked Exhibit 3 and the copy of the library caution deposit receipt marked Ext.-5 that the students were informed that library caution deposit would be refunded after necessary deduction for loss /damages of the library properties.                 From the copy of the fee structure it further revealed that the students were required to pay 1,000/- per annum as library fee, in addition to library caution deposit of Rs.1,000/- payable by the students at the time of their admission in the college.  So the stipulation as to deduction of 50% of the caution deposit money (which is refundable) for wear and tear, as mentioned in the notice dated 10/02/10, and/or for loss/damage of the library properties as mentioned in the deposit receipt and college fee structure, irrespective of any proof of causing loss /damage of the library properties by the  student concerned, appears to be unreasonable and irrational, when  the students were required to pay Rs.1,000/- per annum as library fee for probable wear and tear of the library properties.. As such Ops are liable to refund entire sum of Rs.1,000/- deposited by the complainant as library caution money  with up-to-date interest thereon, when the Ops have failed to make out any specific case of causing loss /damage of the library properties against the complainant. Having regard to the fact that the Ops failed and neglected to refund the library caution money deposited by the complainant in spite of her repeated prayers and in spite of intervention of the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Paschim Medinipur at the instance of the complainant, and that they compelled the complainant to file the instant complaint against them to realize her small legitimate dues, we further propose to direct the Ops to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/ to the complainant for her harassment, and to pay a litigation cost of Rs.2000/ to the complainant.

Contd………….P/5

 

- ( 5 ) -

                             Hence,

                                           it is

                                                Ordered

                                                              that the complaint be allowed on contest. The Ops are directed to refund entire sum of Rs.1,000/- deposited by the complainant as library caution money with up-to-date interest thereon @10% per annum from the date of submission of application for such refund. The Ops. are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/ to the complainant for her harassment, and to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 2000/ to the complainant. The Ops must comply the aforesaid orders within one month from the date of communication of this judgement, failing which they are liable to pay interest on the amounts due @ 12% per annum till compliance of the orders.

                Let the copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost. 

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                                       I agree                      

              

         President                                             Member                                President

                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.