1.       Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.637/2014 dated 29.09.2015.

2.       Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA/9611/2018, an application for condonation of delay of 37 days has also been filed by the Petitioner. The Registry of this Commission has calculated the delay as 29 days. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned.

3.       Respondent No.1/Complainant took admission in Petitioner institute in BBA course on 16.06.2009 by paying registration charge of Rs.5,000/- and later paid a total sum of Rs.1,27,329/-. He lost one year to begin with, as initially he was asked to do the course from Bharthiar University and later under Periyar University. He attended the 1^st & 2^nd year course and appeared for the examination in 2011, though neither the university registration certificate nor the university admit card/hall ticket were issued. The Complainant states that the result of the Complainant was found to be incomplete on the website of the university. Only first year mark-sheet showing result of one subject was issued, whereas the second year result was not available. On the advice of the Petitioner he filled up the university form for the third year also in April, 2012. He received communication for payment of fees, legal action would be initiated against him, though he stopped attending the institute after the third year examination. He lodged a complaint case with the District Forum with following prayer: -

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed an amount of Rs.1,87,507.18 (with interest and other incidental costs) alongwith compensation of Rs.8 lakhs for harassment,  mental agony & for spoiled career of the meritorious student. Breakup of the aforesaid accosts is as follows:

Payment towards actual money receipt        :        Rs.1,27,329.00

Payment towards interest on above @ 12%

For 3.5 years                                              :        Rs.53,478.18

Payment towards cost of statutory typing,

Postage Xerox etc.                                                :        Rs.2,600.00

Payment towards Conveyance charges        :        Rs.4,100.00

Compensation against mental agony          :        Rs.2,00,000.00

Compensation against spoiling career

& service career                                           :        Rs.6,00,000.00

                                                                   ---------------------------

                                                          Total           Rs.9,87,507.18

(Rupees nine lakh eighty seven thousand five hundred seven and 18 paisa)”

 4.      The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 submitting that it was merely a study centre of the Periyar University and they offered distant education facility for students seeking to pursue various courses. The Opposite Party blamed the Complainant for not submitting proper documents and being a habitual absentee. It also shifted the responsibility on the university for issue of admit card/hall ticket and thereby absolved itself of all responsibility for the hardship caused to the Complainant.

5.       The District Forum allowed the Complaint on contest. The District Forum ordered as follows: -

“That the case be and same is allowed on contest against the O.P. no.1 with costs of Rs.5,000/- only and also allowed ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 with the cost of Rs.2,000/- only, payable to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order.

          That the O.P. No.1 is directed to deliver the certificate/result of the said BBA course to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.e. within 30^th April, 2014, in default, the O.P. No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to p ay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only to the complainant within further 15 days from the completion of such specified date i.e.15^th day of May, 2014.

          That the O.P. No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- only to the complainant, as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment, within one month from the date of this order.

          That in case of non-compliance of the order passed by the Forum, the defaulting O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.200/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, which shall be deposited by the O.P. to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.”

6.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The Petitioner contended that the fees was paid to the university and it was the responsibility of the university to issue the mark-sheet to Respondent No.1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 denied allegation of he being a habitual absentee. By withholding the result, the Opposite Party was clearly deficient in service and resorted to unfair trade practice.

7.       The State Commission after hearing both the parties, dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum. The State Commission also held that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 shall pay the entire award as ordered by the District forum within a period of 40 days from the date of the order, failing which the defaulting party/parties shall have to pay Rs.200/- per day till full realization and such amount shall be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

8.       Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as for Respondent No.2 and also Respondent No.1, who appeared in person.

9.       Both the Fora below have given concurrent findings. Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269  has held as under: -

“13.        Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal  principle  that  was  ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

10.     Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23. The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

11. Complainant took admission in the Petitioner institute in BBA course on 16.06.2019 by paying registration charges of Rs.5,000/- and a total sum of Rs.1,27,329/-. He attended classes in the Petitioner institute but got the result and mark-sheet only for one subject that too for first year. Despite paying the fees and attending classes he did not get his degree but was asked to pay further fees, lest legal action would be initiated. Between the two, i.e. the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 they took the fees and other charges and apportioned it in a manner known to them, but left Respondent No.1 in the lurch without any result/degree. Respondent No.1 appeared in all the three examinations, which was not denied or challenged by the Petitioner institute. There is an admission by the Petitioner, vide letter dated 29.09.2012, that Respondent No.1 has successfully completed the course. The Petitioner also failed to produce the attendance register to show that Respondent No.1 was a habitual absentee. Not receiving the result/degree certainly amounts to deficiency in service and both the Fora below have in very unambiguous terms come to the concurrent finding making both the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.2 equally liable for the loss caused to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 is entitled to part relief as prayed for.

12.     In view of the above, it is very clear that the Petitioner institute as well as Respondent No.2 are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. There is, therefore, no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.