West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/109/2014

Miss. Ishita Samanta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vivekananda Art and Cultural Academy. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.109/2014                                                                                             Date of disposal: 18/03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Das, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. S. Roy, Advocate.                                   

          

 Miss. Ishita Samanta, D/o Sri Atul Prasad Samanta of Subhas Nagar, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali,

 Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)Vivekananda Art and Cultural Academy, Proprietor Sri Pradip Kumar Roy, At Station Road, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101.

2)Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University, Represented by Register,

EIILM, At Main Campus, 8^th Mile, Budang Malabassey, West Sikkim, India……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Miss. Ishita Samanta, in short, is that following an advertisement of the OP No.1 the complainant took admission for B.A Course in the EIILM University (Sikkim) on payment of Rs.12,000/- time to time by installment  dated 09/01/2012, 13/02/2012 & 18/04/2013 against proper payment receipts issued by the OP No.1.  It is alleged that the OP No.1 caused harassment and ultimately did not issue Registration Certificate, Syllabus, Prospectus, Admit Card & Mark Sheet etc. of the said University despite repeated persuasion hence the case.  Copy of Advertisement, payment Receipts are produced by the complainant.

      The Op No.1 contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  Very categorically denied the case.  In this connection, OP stated that the complainant has knowledge about Roll No. and has completed the course from OP No.1.  Role of OP No.1 is nothing but a facilitator for making a bridge between the student and the OP No.2 University.  It is further stated that the complainant took admission for the session January 2010 to December 2010, January 2011 to December 2011 and January 2012 to December 2012 after examination OP No.2 /University declared the result and issued mark sheet in the name

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                                                      - ( 2 ) -

 

of the complainant.  But the complainant is not eager to accept the result with some mala fide intention.  Specifically the OP No.1 stated that the complainant is not a student of the OP Institution and as such she is not a consumer.  So, the case should be dismissed.

        OP No.2 takes no step    despite good service of notice. 

        Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the complainant is a consumer?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that under false advertisement, the OP No.1 collected money from the complainant.  There is no function of the OP No.2 University through and upon the OP No.1/ Vivekananda Art and Cultural Academy.  That apart, there was no classes for the course of B.A organized by the OP No.1 or OP No.2.  Without supply of study materials, the OP No.1 took money from the complainant.   There is no whisper with regard to the information establishing that the OP No.1 has any authoritative function of the OP No.2/EIILM University.  Apart from that, the OP No.1 failed to serve the recognized education from the said University in terms of the advertisement.  So, the case should be allowed.

            Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP No.1/ Vivekananda Art and Cultural Academy made strong objection that the Mark Sheet is ready in the name of the complainant but the complainant is intentionally avoiding to accept the same.  The course was held in due time and accordingly the complainant has undergone the same and sat for examination.  So, there is no deficiency of service against the OP No.1.  Moreover, a student is never designated to be a consumer before any educational in Institute.  Thus the case should be dismissed. 

          We have carefully perused the entire case and considered the argument as above.  Admittedly, the OP No.1 is a facilitator making a bridge between the student and the OP No.2 University as disclosed by the OP No.1 in their written objection.  Thus, a facilitator should not be attributed as an educational Institute.  So, any contract for getting service from such facilitator is

Contd…………..P/3

 

                                                                                               - ( 3 ) -

 

not a schedule criteria for disqualifying the complainant from the benefit of the status of consumer.  In this connection, we do not find any evidence showing that the OP No.1 is an educational Institute or having authority of or a branch of OP No.2 EIILM University.

         Under the facts and circumstances, it is held that the OP No.1 is not an educational Institution but an arranger for the complainant in getting study and in that way OP No.1 failed to render necessary service in the tune of advertisement.  Thus, all the issues are decided in favour of the complainant.

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

            The complainant Miss. Ishita Samanta do get a refund of Rs.12,000/- (Twelve thousand) only with @ 9% interest w.e.f. 18/04/2013 payable by the OP No.1 within 30 days from this date of order.     

Dictated & Corrected by me

                     President                          Member                                Member                             President

                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur.