DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO.387/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
21.06.2016 01.07.2016 23.05.2017
Complainant = Vs. = O.P.
Ms. Meghna Sett, 1.The Principal,
D/o. Jyotirmay Sett, Guru Nanak Institute of Technology,
1, Bhutnath Mukherjee Road, Nilganj Road, Panihati, Sodepur,
Shibpur, Kolkata- 700114, P.S. Panihati,
Howrah-711102. Dist-North 24 Parganas.
2. The Chairman,
Erstwhile, JIS Group and Ampai,
Dwarka Building, 1st floor,
7, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700020,
P.S. Maidan.
P R E S E N T :- Pradip Kumar Bandyopadhyay…President
:- Smt. Kabita Acharjee(Goswami)……Member
J U D G E M E N T
This case has been filed by the complainant- Ms. Meghna Sett, on 21.06.2016 under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against The Principal, Guru Nanak Institute of Technology and another.
.
The facts of the case, to put in a nutshell are as below:-
The complainant, Ms. Megha Sett paid Rs. 15,000/-, the provisional allotment fees for admission or B. Tech Course at JIS University, O.P. No.2. This was done after she was successful in the Entrance Examination for the session 2014-2015. The complainant took admission at Guru Nanak Institute of Technology, O.P. No.1. As per para 4 page 4 of the complaint Rs. 15,000/- plus Rs. 66,000/- plus Rs. 1,000/- totaling Rs. 82,600/- was paid to the O.P. No.1. Due to some unavoidable circumstances the complainant could not continue her studies at the institution of O.P. No.1, Guru Nanak Institute of Technology (GNIT).
AD, C.A and F.B.P directed to O.P.No.1 to return the amount as the complainant violated Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986. But the O.Ps did not comply the order of the A.D. Hence, the complaint has filed this case. As per annexure ‘C’ the classes were supposed to start on 4th August, 2014 for the year B. Tech. The complainant intimated her unforeseen circumstances preventing her from studying to the Principal (annexure-C) but it was not considered and the money was not returned.
From the pleadings of the parties the following points have been framed for decision:-
1). Is the complainant consumer?
2). Are the O.Ps deficient in service?
Dictated and Corrected Contd…..2/-
C. C. Case No.-387/2016
- :: 2 :: -
3). Have the O.Ps resorted to unfair trade practice ?
4). What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
Reasoned Decision
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience. Before we discuss the points, let us look at the documentary evidence.
The following documents have been filed by the complainant:-
1). Original Admit Card of Entrance Examination (Annex-A).
2). Original Provisional allotment of seat for B. Tech for session 2014-15(annex-A1).
3). Original Money receipts (Annex- B).
4). Received copy of letter dated 05.08.2014 (annex-C).
5). Hard copy of page captioned ‘News and Events –GNIT- Guru Nanak Institute of Technology in the website named 7). Copy of Legal Notice dated 19.05.2015 along with postal track report(annex- F).
8). Original forwarding letters dated 09.12.2015, 04.02.2016, 20.04.2016 and 05.05.2016 (annex-G).
The following documents have been considered by us in order to arrive at the conclusion of the case.
The Affidavit-in-chief was filed by the complainant on 30.01.2017.
The BNA was filed by the complainant on 02.05.2017.
We have also gone through that 14-4/2007-U, 3(A) Government of India the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education [u-3(A) section].
In view of the above order of Sunil Kumar, Joint Secretary of Higher Education the O.P. No.1 should have returned the money claimed by the complainant deducting Rs. 1,000/- but that was not done.
In the instant case education has been imparted on a commercial basis and hence the case would come under the definition of service.
Dictated and Corrected Contd…..3/-
C. C. Case No.-387/2016
- :: 3 :: -
The unchallenged testimony of the complainant along with the documents have established that the case hence both the points are decided with the observation that the complainant has established the case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps and hence she is entitled to get back
Rs. 82,600/- minus Rs. 1,000/- ( process fees) = Rs. 81,600/-.
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is allowed ex parte against both parties.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 81,600/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 81,600/- plus Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost totaling Rs. 1,06,600/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 6% interest per annum till the date of realization.
Copy be delivered to the parties free of cost.
Member President.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
