Date of Filing: 28-07-2015                                    Date of Final Order: 30-06-2017

Sri Gurupada Mondal, President.

            This is an application u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 filed by Sri Arnab Jyoti Chaudhury against Sri Sudipta Roy Chaudhuri, Branch Manager of Youth Education Service, Cooch Behar and three others, praying for direction to provide one year B.Ed course, Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, Rs.50,000/- for expenditures of the complaint, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.    

            The case of the Complainant in short is that he was an unemployed youth and went to the office of the O.P. No.1 & 2 for one year B.Ed course. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 & 2 gave a proposal for admission through their institution on payment of Rs.65,500/- as course fee including practical subjects. Thereafter, the Complainant took admission at MRM College of Education, Haryana in the year 2014-2015 through the O.P. No.1 & 2 on 30/07/2014 and paid Rs.65,500/- on installments, but no money receipt was issued in his favour but issued clearance certificate.

            Subsequently, the examination was fixed on 16/06/2015 by MRM College of Education and the Complainant obtained clearance certificate from Youth Education Service. Further the case of the Complainant is that he rushed to Haryana and went to MRM College of Education for getting Admit Card, but the o.P. No.2 disclosed that Youth Education Service did not pay any amount regarding his admission for B.Ed course. The Complainant made several attempts over telephone and narrated the incident but did not try to arrange him to sit in the B.Ed examination.

            It is the case of the Complainant that the O.P. No.3 finally refunded the course fee of Rs.65,500/- on 17/06/2015. It is also alleged that the unethical activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffered irreparable loss and injury also mental pain and agony and as such the Complainant has filed the instant case for proper relief.

            The O.P. No.1,2, & 3 have contested the case by filing W/V denying all allegations of the Complainant contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in its form and law. The O.P. No.4 did not turn up to contest this case. The O.P. No.3 finally did not contest this case.

            It is the specific case of the O.Ps that the O.P. No.1 & 2 were the employee of the O.P. No.3. The Complainant came to the O.P. No.1 & 2 for admission at the O.P. No.4, College and at that time the O.P. No.1 & 2 told him that he had to attend classes regularly at the O.P. No.4, College and then he agreed the terms and conditions and the Complainant was admitted in B.Ed course at the O.P. No.4, College and paid consolidated fees of Rs.65,500/- and the same was remitted to the O.P. No.3. The examination was scheduled on 16/06/2015 onwards at the O.P. No.4, College and a clearance certificate was issued on 16/05/2015 to enable him to sit in the B.Ed exam at the O.P. No.4, College. But the Complainant was not allowed to sit in the examination on the ground that he failed to attend the classes at the O.P. No.4, College and he had no qualified percentage of attendance. The O.P. No.3 on good faith refunded the of Rs.65,500/- to the Complainant. According to the O.Ps that due to negligence of the Complainant he did not get the attendance percentage and for that reason he could not sit in the B.Ed examination. On the basis of above averments, the O.Ps pray for dismissal of this case with costs.

          In the light of the contention of both the parties, the following points necessarily come up for consideration to reach a just decision.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?

3. Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

           We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.

Point No.1.

             The Complainant is a student of the O.P. No.3 & 4, who are the educational institution. The Complainant paid Rs.65,500/- as one time fees for his B.ed course through the O.P. No.1 & 2 to the O.P. No.3. The Complainant obtained the service in lieu of money. As such the relation in between the Complainant and the O.Ps are consumer and service provider. Therefore, the Complainant is a consumer.

Point No.2.

            The Complainant is the resident of Cooch Behar and the O.P. No.1 & 2 are the resident of Cooch Behar and the Youth Education Service is situated within the Cooch Behar town. But the O.P. No.3 & 4 are the educational institution and their offices are situated at the outside of Cooch Behar. In such circumstances there is no bar to file this case at Cooch Behar.

         The claim of the Complainant is much less than the prescribed limit. Hence, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.   

Point No.3 & 4.

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration of discussion as well as the points are related with each other.

            The Complainant has not produced any documents before this Forum to show that he deposited Rs.65,500/- in favour of the O.P. No.4 through the O.P. No.1,2 & 3. But from the documents as produced by the Complainant it reveals to us that the O.P. No.3 returned Rs.65,500/- to the Complainant. In such circumstances and from the admission of the O.P. No.1 to 3, we can presume that the Complainant paid Rs.65,500/- to the O.P and the O.P. No.3 returned Rs.65,500/- to the Complainant by issuing a cheque.

            It is evident from the case record that Youth Education Service issued a clearance certificate in favour of the Complainant on 12/05/2015.

            It is alleged by the Complainant that he went to MRM College of Education, Haryana for obtaining Admit Card and on enquiry, the Complainant came to know that Youth Education Service did not pay any amount regarding his admission and for that reason he was not allowed to appear in the examination held on 16/06/2015. Neither the Complainant nor the O.Ps have filed any documents before this Forum to show that the Complainant was admitted at MRM College of Education.

            Further, it is alleged by the Complainant that after his admission, he attended classes at Youth Education Service at Cooch Behar. It has been alleged that the Complainant was admitted at MRM College of Education in Haryana for B.Ed course through the O.P. No.1,2 & 3. Neither the Complainant nor the O.Ps have filed sufficient documents before this Forum in order to come to a final conclusion. In such circumstances it is very much difficult to pass a reasoned order. The Complainant’s allegation is that he started his class at Youth Education Service, Cooch Behar. Only graduate can do B.Ed. A graduate should know, where the classes be held.

            It is not the case of the Complainant that Youth Education Service is the branch of MRM College of Education, Haryana. As such a prudent man should have to know as to how the Youth Education Centre runs classes of B.Ed and who are the teachers. In this juncture, the claim of the Complainant is not trust worthy. Moreover, the Complainant has failed to produce any documents before this Forum that the classes of B.Ed course used to be held at the office of Youth Education Service.

           Further, the O.Ps have filed a document before this Forum issued by MRM College of Education, Haryana where in we find that the name of the Complainant was struck off due to his long absence. Copy of which was forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, R & S, M.D University, Rohtak and Controller of Examination MD University Rohtak. The said document filed by the O.Ps cannot be thrown out or discarded.

        Therefore, from the document, we find that the name of the Complainant was struck off due to his long absence. It is not trust worthy that Youth Education Service did not pay the fees regarding his admission. Therefore, the O.Ps cannot be held liable for the wrong done by the Complainant himself. As such the Complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            Both the points are decided against the Complainant.

Hence,

         Ordered,

                  That the present Case No. CC/70/2015 be and the same is rejected on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2 and Ex-parte against the O.P. No.3 & 4. There is no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.

Dictated and corrected by me.