DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.

Consumer Complaint No. 163 of 2015

Date of filing: 03.8.2015                                                               Date of disposal: 17.5.2016

Complainant:               Subrata Sen, S/o. Late Biswanath Sen, residing at Meghnad Saha Pally, PO: Rajbati, PS. & District: burdwan, PIN – 713 104.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:    1.     The Principal, Narula Institute of Technology, 81, Nilganj Road, Agarpara, Kolkata – 700 109.

2.      Manager, Axis Bank, Burdwan Branch, City Tower, G. T. Road, Burdwan – 713 101.

Present:      Hon’ble Member:  Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:                Ld. Advocate, Benoy Mukherjee.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1:   Ld. Advocate, Amitava Chowdhury & P. Kundu.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2:  Ld. Advocate, Kamal Kumar Dutta.

J U D G E M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the Op-1 & Op-2 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the OP-1 did not refund the admission fees as paid by the complainant to the OP-1 along with other reliefs.

The fact of the case of the complainant is that;-

The complainant’s son named Soumadip Sen was admitted on 02.8.2013 in the institute of Op-1, Narula Institute of Technology.  At the time of admission in terms of the institute the complainant paid Rs. 61,600=00 only through Demand Draft issued by Axis Bank, Burdwan branch vide Sl. No.043451 dated 01.8.2013 towards admission of his son and Rs. 20,000=00 for counseling fees that was duly acknowledged by the institute on appropriate receipt issued by the Op-1 in favour of the complainant’s son on 02.8.2013. After the completion of admission process, the complainant’s son had seriously fallen ill and he could not attend the institute and as such the complainant under compelling circumstances requested the Op-1 for withdrawal of candidature of his son from the institute with further request for refund of money deposited at the time of admission on 02.8.2013.   The said letter of withdrawal of candidature was made on 22.8.2013 addressed to the Op-1.  Thereafter, complainant requested the Op-1 and also submitted all required documents for refund of money from Op-1 with a letter vide dated 26.10.2013.  After a prolonged gap and over telephonic conversation the Op-1 finally sent a letter on 17.12.2013 addressed to the complainant thereby confirming the claim of Rs.66, 600=00 only and informed that refund of money is being processed at their end and accordingly the Op-1 informed that it would be remitted within a very short period in favour of the complainant.  Since thereafter inspite of repeated requested by the complainant for refund of money the Op-1 did not remit the money in favour of the complainant.  Hence, the case arose.

          Notice was duly served upon the Op-1 and Op-2.  Both of them contested the case by filing written version. 

          The Op-1 states that this complaint is based on demand of money which should be agitated by filing Money Suit before the Civil Court if it maintains and the complainant files this case to deceit the Govt. not to payment of court fees.  The O.P. No.1 also states that the instant complaint case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties as AICTE is a necessary party to this case.  Thus, the instant complaint case is not maintainable.  The Op-1 admitted that it is true the complainant’s son was admitted in the college of the Op in course of B. Tech CSE and deposited Rs.61, 600=00 in the office of the Op-1and the complainant’s son agreed and have given undertaking and declaration to the Op-1 as per norms of the institution to pay requisite fees and charges.  Op-1 also states that the dispute is not consumer dispute and this complaint is based on demand of money which should be agitated by filing Money Suit before the Civil Court if it maintains and the complainant files this case to deceit the Govt. not to payment of court fees.  Op-1 also states that the complainant’s son intentionally withdraws his studentship and the complainant has to continue his study in the OP/institute as he had already taken admission at his selected course in the OP/institution.  The complainant’s son at his own choice left the college of the OP-1 without any cogent reason.

The Op-2 begs to submit that the complainant has unnecessarily impleaded this Op-2., Axis Bank as a party in this complaint petition because in the four corner of the complaint petition there is not a single whisper of allegation regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op-2.  Moreover in the prayer portion of the complaint petition there is not any single prayer of relief against this Op-2 and therefore, this Op-2 has been praying before this Ld. Forum to pass an order to expunge this OP from the complaint petition lodged by the complainant for proper adjudication of this case.

DECISION WITH REASONS

          During argument of the case a question is raised “Whether a student is a consumer or not”.  Both the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and the Op-1 took part in the argument in respect of the above question.  The Ld. Advocate for the Op-1 cited the case references of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court Title P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. L.N. Charitable Trust & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.22532/2012 cited on 09.8.2012 wherein it was held as under:-

“in view of the judgment of this court in Maharshi Dayananda University Vs.Surjeet Kaur, 2010(II) SC 159= 2010(II) CPC 696 SC, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments categorically held that education is not a commodity.  Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission; fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service.  Such matter cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act, 1986.”

          On the basis of this judgment the Op-1 defended that the complainant’s case is not at all maintainable as the complainant’s son is a student and got admission into an educational institutions.  The Ld. Advocate for the complainant’s son made argument at length producing the prospectus and many other documents of Op-1 showing that the concerned institution Narula Institute of Technology i.e. Op-1 is solely making business in the name of “Education”.  The OP has been treating the education as a commodity of a business and thereby refuting the argument of the Op-1.   After hearing both the complainant and the Op-1 and perusing all the documents, written version, written argument this Forum hold the view that it cannot go beyond the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as the complainant’s son is a student and got admission in an educational institution the complainant’s prayer cannot be entertained.   Regarding Op-2 there is no argument on behalf of the complainant or the Op-1.  Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the present case is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated and corrected by me.                                                               

                       (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                                  Member

                         DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                         (Silpi Majumder)                     (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                                                               Member                                         Member   

                                                       DCDRF, Burdwan                         DCDRF, Burdwan