State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal



KOLKATA – 700 027

S.C. CASE NO.: FA/2009/193 DATE: 28.07.2009

DATE OF FILING: -21.05.2009

APPELLANT : Sri. Tanup Kumar Das, Student (MBA),

S/o Milon Chandra Das, Hanseswari Road,

1st Bye Lane, P.O.- Bansberia, Dist-Hooghly.

RESPONDENTS : 1. Director,

Global Institute of Engineering and Management,

46, Tarun Sengupta Sarani, Airport Gate no-1,

Kolkata-700 028.

2. Regional Office Of Punjub Technical University,

BF-32, 1st Floor, Sector-I, Salt lake City, Kolkata-700 064.


MEMBER : Smt. Silpi Majumder.



2. Sri. Abu Sakar, Advocate.


S. Majumder, Member.

Being agrived by the judgement passed by the Ld. District Forum 24Paraganas, (N) on 24/04/2009, in the case no 03/09, the Appellant-Complainant has preferred this appeal, wherein the Forum below has dismissed the complaint exparte without any cost.

The case of the complainant before the Forum below was that due to enrolment in the MBA course he paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards the first installment of course fee out of three installment to the OP-1and got admitted on 14/08/2008 under the OP no.1-Institute recognized by the OP no-2 University (PTU) in the 2-year MBA course. After attending the classes for about 11 days the Complainant decided to quit from the course and accordingly he informed the OP no-1 regarding his decision and requested for refund of the amount. But the OP no-1 denied refunding the amount as it had been sent to the University-OP-2 for registration. The Complainant lodged a General Diary with Dum Dum Police Station regarding the matter. Thereafter the Complainant made several attempts to get back the amount deposited by him, but to no effect. Finding no alternative the Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum praying for dirction upon the OP no-1 to refund him the entire amount of Rs.17,000/- along with interest @ 14% p.a. in addition to compaintation of Rs.1,00,000/- and other relief.

Preferring this appeal the Appellant has stated the same facts as mentioned by him in the Complaint petition before the Forum below only in addition to that he has prayed for Rs. 2,500/- towards the litigation cost and travelling expenses. According to the Appellant the judgment passed by the Forum below being erroneous should be set aside and he has prayed for allowing this appeal.

During hearing before this Commission the Appellant was present in person and the Respondent No-2 through their Ld. Advocate. Inspite of receipt of notice the Respondent-1 did not appear before this Commission, so we took up the Appeal for hearing exparte against the Respondent No-1.

During hearing The Appellant has submitted that being attracted by an advertisement given by the Respondent no-1, published in Times Ascent, Kolkata, on 16/07/2008, through which the said Respondent invited application for admission in the job orinted MBA course and it was further mentioned by the Responden no-1 that the freshers will earn an attractive salary after completion. According to the Appellant that being allured by the said advertisement he got admitted on 14/08/2008 in the two-year-MBA course under the Respondent No-1 and paid Rs. 17,000/- towards enrolment in the course and first installment of course fee out of three installments. The allegation of the Appellant is that as he was not provided GIEM Facilities such as Counselling service, Careers Counselling, Liabrary, IT Center, Audio- Visual Room and Education Loans, he decided to quit from the course and accordingly he demanded refund of the amount paid by him at the time of admission. In this respect we have noticed that after having attened the classes for about only 11days the Complainant decided to quit from the course and though he alleged that he was not provided with GIEM Facilities, there is no averment in the complaint petition in this context and the Appellant has failed to produce any cogent evidence in support of his contention. The Appellant has also failed to show us any written application through which he sought for such facilities from the Respondent-1. The Ld. Forum below has correctly held that the Complainant-Appellant did not raise any allegation regarding violation of any representation made in the prospectus of the said Institute-OP-1. It is also seen by us that his only allegation in the complaint petition was that the OP-1-Respondent-1 did not refund the deposited money paid by him. But the Appellant has failed to us show us that the Respondent-1 is under compulsion to refund the said amount to him in case of quit from the course and Institution. As the Appellant has voluntarily withdrew from the course of the Institution, he is entitled to get back the refund of the amount paid by him at the time of admission. Therefore we are unable to find out any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent-1 and hence the Appellant-Complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards compensation, litigation cost from the Respondent-1. The Complainant has made out no case that due to deficiency in service on behalf of the Respondent-1 he was compelled to quit the course within a very short period from his admission. Therefore in our opinion the judgment passed by the Forum below does not suffer from any infirmity and material irregularity and we are not inclined to interfere in it.

Hence it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed on contest against the Respondent-2 and exparte against the Respondent-1 without any cost and the Forum’s judgment be hereby affirmed. The office is directed to send down the copy of this judgment to the Ld. Forum below and issue the same upon the recorded Advocates/parties of both parties free of cost forthwith.

(S.Majumder) (Justice. A. Chakrabarti)