DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 30 of   2018 

 

Dr. Bappaditya Roy & Dr. Raj Deb on behalf of

1st & 2nd Batch MBBS Students of 

TMC & Dr. B.R.A.M. Teaching Hospital. ..…..…......Complainants.

 

           

           -VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Principal,

TMC & Dr. B.R.A.M Teaching Hospital,

Hapania, Pin- 799014.

 

2. Directorate of Medical Education,

Agartala, West Tripura,

Bidurkarta Chowmuhani- 799001. ..............Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C o u n s e l

 

For the Complainant : In person. 

      

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Haradhan Sarkar,

  Advocate. 

 

For the O.P. No.2. : None Appeared.

  

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  12.09.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Bappaditya Roy and Dr. Raj Deb, U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioners case in short is that both of them were admitted in the first year of MBBS course on 31.07.2007 of Tripura State Govt. quota at TMC & Dr. B.R.A.M. Teaching Hospital. They deposited Rs.25,000/- as a caution money which will be return to them after completion of the course. After 5 years they completed the course and demanded the caution money though internship was also completed on 14th February 2013. They wrote letter to Director, Medical Education on 05.06.2017 also applied to the Principal T.M.C and Dr. B.R.A.M. Teaching Hospital on 05.05.2018.  They approached the authority but did not get any positive response. Therefore, both of them filed this case for getting redress.

 

2. O.P. Medical Education filed written objection denying the claim. It is stated that complaint petition is not maintainable.  An Arbitration proceeding is going on GENET regarding assets and liabilities of TMC & Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital. Caution money Rs.25,000/- was taken as per terms of admission. But on that time GENET was running the medical college and therefore it was replace by the Society for Tripura Medical College. Petitioners are not consumer  so, they are not entitled to get any redress.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the petition is maintainable and the petitioners are entitled to get caution money paid at the time of their admission?

(II) Whether petitioners are entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service of the O.Ps?

 

4. Petitioners side produced copy of application submitted to the Tripura Medical College & Dr. B.R.A.M.  Teaching Hospital, money receipt in respect of payment of Rs.25,000/- Memorandum issued by the Director of Health service in respect of nomination of admission of Bappaditya Roy.  Petitioners side also given evidence of Bappaditya Roy, one of the complainant. 

 

5. O.P. Director of Medical Education produced the Bye-Law – of the Medical College, Notification issued by the Secretary. Also produced the statement on affidavit of Director of Medical Education. 

 

6. On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

 

7. It is admitted and established fact that O.P. petitioner  were admitted at TMC & BRAM Teaching Hospital on 31.07.2007. It is also admitted fact that both of them deposited Rs.25,000/- each as caution money.

 

8. We have gone through the money receipt issued by the Tripura Medical College & BRAM Memorial Teaching Hospital and found that on 31st July 2007 Rs.1,02800/- was paid by Bappaditya Roy  and again Rs.102800/- was paid by Raj Deb. Tution fee Rs.75,000/- paid by both of them. So, it is established that they were taking medical education from the Tripura Medical College on payment of fees. O.P. had given the education in lieu of money. So, it can be easily assumed that O.P. was service provider and petitioners were the consumers who had taken Medical education on payment of fees.  As the O.P. was taking consideration for giving medical education they are to maintain proper service and in case of deficiency of service petitioners being consumer has the right to approach the Consumer Court. Therefore this case is maintainable.

 

9. It is admitted fact that petitioner paid Rs.25,000/- at the time of admission as caution money which is to be refunded on completion of course. Course was completed in the year 2013. Since then both the petitioners approached the college authority and also Director of Medical Education for refund of the money. But no positive response they received from them. 

 

10. Petitioner, Bappaditya Roy in his evidence stated they approached both the Director, Medical Education and Principal of TMC but they did not take any step. Claimed earnest money Rs.25,000/- and also Rs.25,000/- for harassment interest as compensation. 

 

11. The contention of O.P. as revealed from the evidence of Chinmoy Biswas is that as the ownership of the college has changed from GENET to Society so the liability can not be fixed on the O.P. O.P., Chinmoy Biswas repeated the statement made in the written statement. He stated that the founder of GENET already left Tripura with assets and liability. 

 

12. We have gone through the money receipt and found that the money receipt was issued by the Tripura Medical College  & Dr. BRAM  Teaching Hospital not GENET or other authority. The fees was taken as per direction of the Director, Medical Education. Both the petitioners were selected through Director of Medical Education and as per the direction of O.P. No.1,  Director,  the fees  was received by the Principal of the Medical College. The matter of changing ownership of the medical college can not encroach upon the petitioners right as they paid the amount subject to refund after completion of course. The post of Principal,  Medical College is still in existence and the amount is lying with the Principal. Director of Medical Education in the cross examination admitted it and stated that caution money lies with the Principal Medical college. Principal of the Medical College did not appear after receipt of the notice and case proceeded against him exparte. He did not assign any reason for non payment of caution money which was deposited subject to be refunded after completion of course. This is deficiency of service of the service provider, Principal of the institute. Director of Health Education also did not give proper direction for refund of the money as promised earlier. We therefore direct both the O.Ps to arrange the refund of the money. The money was to be refunded in the year 2013 but till date it was not refunded and no response  given. We therefore, direct both the O.Ps to pay 10% interest over Rs.25,000/- amount from 2014 to 2018 till the date of payment. We also direct O.Ps to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

13. In view of our findings over the points we direct both the O.Ps to refund the caution money Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) along with interest @ 9% P.A. from 2014 to 2018 till the date of payment and also compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each to the petitioners. Payment is to be made within 2(two) months if not paid it will carry interest @ 9%. P.A.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA