Orissa

Rayagada

CC/19/2021

Etishri Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vikash Educational - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

.

C.C. Case  No. 19/ 2021.                                 Date.   17     .3. 2021.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu, .                             President..

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Etishri Mishra, , W/O: Sri Pradeep Mishra,  New Colony,   Trupti  Hotel lane, Po/Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The  Principal, The  Vikash Educational  Institution, Kantabada, Vikash High global camps Dears Road,  Po:Kantabada, Bhubaneswar, -752054, Code- 21, State: Odisha.                                                                                                                  .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps :- Set exparte.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes emerges out of the grievances raised by the  complaint petition filed by

The above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for

Non refund of  fees amount a sum of Rs.22,000/- course  fee and pocket  money  due to  non

Study  in the above  institution  for which the  complainant sought  for redressal of the grievances

raised by the complainant.

                

On being noticed the O.Ps.neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  04 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 8months  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the Act. Hence the O.P. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard learned counsel for the complainant.  Perused  the  record  filed by the parties.

                                                Findings.

During the course of exparte hearing  the complainant  annexed  certain documents such as the deposit receipt bearing  No.481 Dt.17.4.2019 a sum of Rs.20,000/-,  towards course fees and Mess fees.  Another  receipt  No.108 Dt.17.04.2019 for Rs.2,000/- total a sum of Rs.22,000/- was received by the O.P.from the complainant  towards course fees, Mess fees, Pocket money (copies of the money receipt filed in this District commission  which is marked as Annexure-I & Annexure-2).

The main grievance of the complainant was that due super cyclone the  O.Ps had ordered to leave the  Hostel after seven days  and no service had   provided  by the O.Ps  and not refunded the deposited amount till date. Hence the  complaint  petition for refund of deposited amount.

On perusal of the complaint  this Distict commission found the O.Ps made mischief’s and  play with career   of the complainant which is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the forum  whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in non refunding the fees  which was received by the O.P. without any service  as per the  provisions laid down under section 39 of the  C.P. Act,2019.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  thatinspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the grievances of the complaint which amounts to  deficiency in service  as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.Ps  jointly and severally liable.

Forum observed   after receipt of the grievances, no action has been taken by the said O.Ps in ensuring refund of deposited fees  as alleged. Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service.

            It is held and  reported  in C.P.R-2009(1) page No.269 the hon’ble  State Commission, Andhra Pradesh where in observed “Where  complainant having chosen to take admission in another college demanded his money deposited  by way of refund, it was deficiency in service on part of the O.P. in not refunding  the  amount”.

            Further it is held  and reported in C.P.R-2009(1) page No. 340 the hon’ble State Commission, Chennai where in observed “Denial of refund of tution fees to a student who withdraw from admission without joining the  class  amounts to  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service”.

            Again  it is held and  reported in C.P.R. 2006(2) page No.97 the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi where in observed  “ No educational institution, centre, or university can forfeit the amount received  by it  at  the time of admission in case it has not provided the  service  for which consideration was meant”.

            Further  it is held and reported  in C.P.R.2006(2) page No. 357 the Hon’ble State Commission,Pondichecy where in observed “Where a student withdraws  admission  from institution full amount of fee has to be refunded”.

            Basing on the  above citations of the  Hon’ble Commission  this forum allowed this case in part.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                            ORDER.

            In  resultant  the complaint petition stands allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.Ps.

            The O.P. is  ordered to refund fees  amount a sum of  Rs.22,000/-  to the complainant  inter alia to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, unfair trade practice and  litigation expenses.

                We therefore issued a “Cease and Desist” order against the O.P. directing  him to stop such a practice  forthwith and not to repeat in future. 

The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days  from the date of  receipt of this order failing which an interest  @ Rs.9% per annum  would  accrue on the above  amount . from  the date of  repective  deposit till  realization.Service the copies of the order to the parties on free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.            Pronounced on this                17th^h.day of   March, 2021.

 

                                                MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT