State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Avishek Gangopadhyay vs Institute Of Technology & Marine ... on 25 January, 2010
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027 FA No: 16 Of 2010 (Arisen out of order dated 08/12/2009 in Case No 281/2009 of District South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore)
1. Sri Avishek Gangopadhyay also known as Sri Avishek Ganguly. S/O Late Ashish Ganguly, 31/E, B.C. Road. PS. Behela, Kolkata- 700034., S/O Late Ashish Ganguly, 31/E, B.C. Road. PS. Behela, Kolkata- 700034.
....Appellant Versus
1. Institute of Technology & Marine Engineering.
Jhinga, Diamond Harbour Road.PO. Amira, Dist. South 24-Parganas, West Benagal. 743368. , Jhinga, Diamond Harbour Road.PO. Amira, Dist. South 24-Parganas, West Benagal. 743368.
2. M/S Orion Edutech Pvt. Ltd.
13th floor, Everest House, 46C, Chowringhee Road. Kolkata- 700071. , 13th floor, Everest House, 46C, Chowringhee Road. Kolkata- 700071.
3. M/S Ani Inforgen Pvt. Ltd.
BG-2, Sector-II, Salt Lake City. Kolkata- 700091. , BG-2, Sector-II, Salt Lake City. Kolkata- 700091.
....Respondent BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI , PRESIDENT MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER , Member PRESENT:
Mr. Nikhil Baran Maity., Advocate for the Appellant 1 None for the Respondent *JUDGEMENT/ORDER HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.
1/25.01.2010.
Heard Mr. Nikhil Baran Maity, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant. We have considered the contention of the Ld. Advocate at the admission stage. It appears that the grievance of the Complainant - Appellant is that the Respondent No. 1 issued a notice and in deference to the reputation of the Institute the Complainant - Appellant responded to the said notice and deposited the money as appears from Annexure "A" & "B" to the memo of appeal. It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that after such representation of the college authorities being O.P. they cannot absorb themselves from the responsibility and having acted on representation of the college by issuance of the said notice, the Complainant - Appellant made the said application and deposited the money and, therefore, O.P. No. 1 is the service provider.
Upon consideration of the said contention of the Ld. Advocate as also perusal of the document enclosed we find that the notice at Annexure "A" dated 27.02.2008 was a notice issued by the proposed employer i.e. O.P. No.3 and, therefore, the notice cannot be said to have been issued by the O.P. No. 1 - college authority. The Ld. Advocate strongly relied on Annexure "F" being letter dated 23.03.2009 issued on behalf of O.P. No. 1 - Institute and strong reliance was placed on statement made in paragraph 3 of the said letter. On perusal of the said letter we also find the notice was put in the Notice Board of the Institute and no other responsibility was accepted by the Institute authorities. Materials on record also do not indicate that the college authority either before the said notice or had given any impression of their taking any responsibility in the matter of proposed employment on the basis of the said campus interview. In the circumstances we are also of the opinion that the O.P. No. 1 is not the service provider of the present case and, therefore, the impugned order is affirmed hereby. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
Pronounced Dated the 25 January 2010 [HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI] PRESIDENT [MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER] Member