West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/3/2014

Debashreeta Samanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

19 Aug 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                            

 Complaint case No.03/2014                                                         Date of disposal:  19/08/2014                               

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

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

        For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate.

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

          

      Debashreeta Samanta, D/o Atul Prasad Samanta  of  Subhas Nagar, P.O- Medinipur, P.S.

      Kotwali, Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

     Vivekananda Art and Cultural Academy, Proprietor Pradip Kumar Roy at Station Road, P.O.

     Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101...……………Ops.

         

                  The case of the complainant, in short, is that a total sum of 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only has been deposited for against course fees 18,000/- (Eighteen thousand) only for admission in Graduation course under EIILM UNIVERSITY, SIKKIM in compliance with the invitation of the Op Vivekananda Art and Cultural Academy.  It is alleged that the Op never made any arrangement for organizing class and supply of notes and studying materials in terms of advertisement.  Even after expiry of two years no roll number has been issued from the end of the Op.  Stating the allegation the complainant raised allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thereby prayed for the refund of money deposited and harassment cost of Rs.50 000/- (Fifty thousand) only.  In this connection, certain documents of payment receipts are submitted. 

               The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is totally false and concocted and the same is barred by defect of party.  The EIILM UNIVERSITY is the necessary party.  It is further stated that the OP is authorized service provider of the said University and the role of the Op is very limited.  In fact, there was no contract between the parties hereof for supply of study materials, Admit Card & arrangement for Classes.  The complainant has participated in the examination of B.A (Bengali) for the session January 2010 to December 2010 and so on in the institution of the Op and the said University declared the result and issued mark sheet accordingly.  Op several times made intimation to the complainant.  So there is no cause of action and the case should be dismissed, claimed by the Op.      

Contd…………………P/2

-(2)-

         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 case is barred by defect of necessary party?
4. Whether the Op is a service provider of EIILM UNIVERSITY?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 5:

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

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant made payment of 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only on account of Admission fees, tuition fees etc. as per open advertisement of the Op.  But no classes, examination and result were held.  In this connection, the complainant has not obtained admit card or roll number in respect of the desired course.  In such circumstances, there is nothing but to refund the money received by the Op together with compensation and litigation cost.  In this connection, the decisions reported in 2013 (3) CPR 48 (NC) and 2013 (2) CPR 441 (NC) are referred to and submitted by the Ld. Advocate that since the Op has not organized the course in favour of the complainant in accordance with the advertisement, the complainant should get refund of the deposit money and compensation etc. as prayed for.

             So far we have Hd. Argument from the OP on preceding occasion is that the examination in respect of the course was held in due time and the same has been undergone by the complainant.  Accordingly result has been published.  But the complainant did not receive the same in spite of repeated intimation made from the end of the Op.  In this connection, it is also submitted that the result is lying with the OP and the same may be collected by the complainant if she desires for.

            Lastly, it is pointed out in the submission that as the University is the supreme authority, the case cannot be effectively decided without hearing from them.  Here in this case, the complainant has not impleaded the authority of the EIILM UNIVERSITY as necessary party.  As a result the case should be dismissed.

           We have carefully considered the case of both parties together with necessary documentary evidence on record.  It is admitted that the complainant voluntarily got admission

Contd…………………P/3

 

-(3)-

in the course of B.A Honours in Bengali under EIILM UNIVERSITY through the Op.  If that be so, it is difficult for us to decide the case in absence of the said University.  The case as on record involves the question of authoritative role of the Op and the same cannot be adjudicated without hearing the said University.  So far ends of justice, it would be fair for giving liberty to the complainant for filing fresh petition of complaint making the ego city as necessary party therein. 

           In view of the discussion made above it is held and decided that the case in present form should be dismissed with giving liberty to the complainant for taking necessary steps with a view of getting relief.

          Thus all the issues are disposed of.

           Upon the decision, the case should be dismissed for want of necessary party.  

              Hence,

                           It is ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed   on contest  without cost with giving liberty to the complainant for filing fresh case for seeking relief.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                            Member              Member                                President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur.