State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Avijit Das vs Sri Dipak Maity on 31 December, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1218/2016 ( Date of Filing : 15 Dec 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/08/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/134/2015 of District Paschim Midnapore) 1. Sri Avijit Das Director, Educare Institute for Higher Studies, Education Consultant Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, SAI Complex, O.T. Road, Inda, Kharagpur, P.O. Inda, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721 305. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Dipak Maity S/o Tarapada Maity, Jagatpur, P.O.- Palanda, P.S.- Panskura, Dist. Purba Medinipur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Noni Gopal Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent: In-Person., Advocate Dated : 31 Dec 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The complaint case since been allowed by the Ld. District Forum, aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is moved by the Director of Educare Institute for Higher Studies (EIHS).
The complaint case, in brief, was that, with a view to pursue Masters degree in Bentgali, he took admission at the OP Institute and sat for the scheduled exams. Allegedly, notwithstanding the OP promised to provide Migration Certificate, Pass Certificate, Registration Certificate, admit card, mark sheet etc. of EIILM University, despite receiving money from him, the OP did not provide the same to the Complainant. Therefore, the complaint case was filed.
Counter case of the OP was that he used to act as an agent of different Universities and through his communication centre he helped educated persons take admission in those Universities for higher studies. In this case, the OP helped the Complainant take admission in MA, Bengali course under the EIILM University, Sikkim and after taking admission, the Complainant appeared for the concerned examinations and got mark sheets directly from the University concerned. It was further stated that all the desired documents were to be provided by the University concerned and not this OP and therefore, it cannot be held responsible for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the University concerned in any manner whatsoever.
Decision with reasons At the time of hearing, both sides were present. We have heard both of them and gone through the documents on record.
It is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that the instant case was filed after 3 years from the day on which the cause of action arose. Thus, it was hopelessly time barred.
It appears from the documents on record that the Respondent came to know about the illegality of the course being run by the EIILM University in the year 2014 and subsequently, he filed the complaint case in the year 2015. Evidently, therefore, the instant case was not hit by limitation.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant also questioned the maintainability of the complaint case contending inter alia that 'education' related disputes cannot be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act.
We, however, totally disagree with such proposition of the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant. The bone of contention between the parties was not simply an education related dispute, but much more. It was also about indulgence of the Appellant in unfair trade practice. We have no qualms, therefore, holding that the present dispute was very much adjudicable under the 1986 Act.
The Appellant though sought to wash his hands off the entire imbroglio contending inter alia that he merely acted as an agent for earning commission, we feel that, this cannot be a cogent ground to absolve him of due liabilities taking into consideration the fact that, before taking agency, it was the first and foremost duty of the Appellant to cause due diligence and know the actual legal status of the distant learning course being offered by the University in question.
In the matter of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. V. State of Chattisgarh & Ors (2005), the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically considered the issue of extra territorial operation of State enactment in the form of establishment of Off campus centres, Off-shore campus and study centres and ultimately, in the light of the constitutional mandate as contained in Article 245 (1) of the Constitution, laid down that 'Parliament alone is competent in making laws in the whole or any part of the Territory of India and the legislative of State making laws for the whole or any part of State'.
The effect and meaning of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Yashpal case is that each University in the country must have its own territorial jurisdiction and the State University established under the State Act cannot go beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State concerned to grant affiliation to any institution.
Subsequently, the UGC vide its letter dated 16-04-2009 informed all the State Governments to take suitable steps for amending the existing State Acts so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-mentioned case and with the request to the State Governments to stop all State/State-Private Universities from operating beyond the Territorial Jurisdiction of the State in any manner, either in the form of Off Campus/Study Centre/affiliated College and Centres operating through franchises.
It is not at all believable that the Appellant was totally in the dark about the fragility/illegality of the interstate course being conducted by the EIILM University through distant learning. In any case, ignorance is no excuse in the eye of law. The MA Course being conducted by the EIILM University was simply a void ab initio in the eye of law. As a result, not only the expenditure incurred by the Respondent proved to be sheer wastage of money, but also the entire hard work of the Respondent, who is a physically handicap person, in pursuing the said course, went down the drain. The Appellant had no authority to spoil the career prospect of the Respondent in this way.
Seen against this backdrop, no doubt, the Ld. District Forum let off the Appellant quite meekly. Be that as it may, since the present Appeal is devoid of any merit, the same fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER