State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Koushik Pramanik vs Mr. Amit Hati on 8 February, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1295/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/09/2015 in Case No. CC/CC/81/2014 of District Howrah) 1. Koushik Pramanik S/o, Kashinath Pramanik, Vill - Chilarah, P.O - Ganeshpur, P.S - Shyampur, Dist - Howrah, Pin - 711 312. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mr. Amit Hati S/o, Mr. Milan Hati, Vill - Mandalpara, P.O - Anantapur, P.S - Shyampur, Dist - Howrah, Pin - 711 312. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Debasis Mitra , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sankar Mukhopadhyay., Advocate Dated : 08 Feb 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 17-09-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in C.C. No. 81/2014, whereof the complaint has been allowed with cost.
In a nutshell, case of the Complainant is that, he approached the OP coaching centre for pursuing MSc (Math) course under the EIILM University. He also appeared for the final examination in the month of September, 2012 and the said University declared result of the said examination in February-March, 2013. However, he was not issued any mark-sheet. When he pressed hard, the Director of the OP Coaching Centre expressed his inability to do anything citing some personal problems. Instead the Director of the OP Coaching Centre proposed him to take admission in a college recognized by NCTE to pursue B.Ed course. Left with no other choice, the Complainant gave in to such proposal of the OP and paid Rs. 31,000/- and rest of the amount was payable at a later stage. It is alleged that although the OP promised to provide necessary document as a proof of admission to B.Ed course for the academic session 2013-2014 by December, 2013 and provide study materials to him, the OP failed to keep its word. Hence, the complaint.
It is stated by the OP in its WV that although the Complainant took admission to pursue M.Sc (Math) course, he did not sit for the final exam because at that time some technical dispute was going on at the EIILM University. Therefore, the Complainant was refunded the entire money, i.e., Rs. 11,000/-. Admitting that the Complainant paid Rs. 31,000/- for pursuing B.Ed. Course, it is alleged by the OP that although the Complainant was asked to submit all original papers time and again, he did not bother to get in touch with the OP. Instead he filed the complaint case.
Decision with reasons We have heard the averment of both sides and perused the material on record.
Admittedly, the Appellant paid requisite amount for pursuing M.Sc. (Math) course under the EIILM University through the Respondent Coaching Centre for the academic session 2012-2013. Documents on record show that the Appellant was even issued admit card to sit for the final exam. On one hand, it is alleged by the Appellant that due to personal rivalry between the concerned University and the Respondent, he did not get the mark sheet; on the other hand, the Respondent attributed it to some unspecified technical problem at the said University. We afraid, the term 'technical' itself is a vague one since it does not denote the exact nature of problem. That apart, the Respondent has not placed on record any cogent documentary proof to show that the problem was at the end of the University itself and it was in no way responsible for the misery of the Appellant. Whatever be the truth, fact remains that in the melee, not only all his hard-work went down the drain, but the Complainant was deprived of the coveted mark sheet/certificate for no fault of him.
Similarly, although the Appellant paid Rs. 31,000/-, it appears that the Respondent failed to provide requisite documents for the Appellant to pursue B.Ed course despite receipt of almost the entire admission fee from the Appellant for the said course. True, the Respondent blamed the Appellant for this contending inter alia that the latter failed to place before it all the requisite documents in original, but most significantly, it stopped short of specifying the exact names of concerned documents that the Appellant allegedly did not provide. It has also not furnished any tangible proof to show if it ever asked the Appellant to submit any document for this purpose. It is hardly believable that after paying Rs. 31,000/- for pursuing a course, one would shy away from providing requisite documents to the authority concerned, thereby risking one's career prospects in jeopardy.
Thus, all the defence, so articulated by the Respondent, does not seem quite convincing to us. The Respondent, as it appears, proved itself as a square peg in a round hole. Notwithstanding the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, the quantum of award does not seem commensurate to the sufferings, mental stigma and agony, financial loss endured by the Appellant. Accordingly, we are inclined revise the impugned order to some extent.
The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part against the Respondent. The impugned order is modified to the extent that Respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant. Rest of the order shall remain unaltered. The Respondent shall ensure strict compliance of this order within 40 days hence, i.d., law will take its own course. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER