State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sumana Kumar vs Mr. Dhruba Jyoti Ganguly on 13 September, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/45/2019 ( Date of Filing : 18 Jan 2019 ) 1. Smt. Sumana Kumar D/o Dr. Santosh Manohar Kumar, 20, H.L. Sarkar Road, Bansdroni, P.S. - Regent Park, Kolkata - 700 070. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Mr. Dhruba Jyoti Ganguly Prop., Ramkrishna Paramhamsa Educational Services, 302, Bells House, 10A, Ho Che Minh Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. Emon Bhattacharya, Advocate for the Complainant 1 Mr. Emon Bhattacharya, Advocate for the Complainant 2 Dated : 13 Sep 2023 Final Order / Judgement Hon'ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member
Published on 06.10.2023 CC/45/2019 has been filed by Sumana Kumar against Dhrubajyoti Ganguly, OP u/s 17 (1) (a) (i) read with section 12, 13, 14 of Consumer Protection, 1986.
The Opposite Party Dhrubajyoti Ganguly is the proprietor of Ramkrishna Paramhangsha Educational Services and provides services for admission of students in various educational institutions.
The case of the complainant is that on June 14, 2018 the OP entered into an agreement with the complainant Sumana Kumar where he promised to get the complainant admitted to one of the Medical Colleges out of 4 Medical Colleges as mentioned in the said agreement, for the academic session 2018, 19 on priority basis. As per the agreement the complainant was to make a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- as an advance towards the consultancy for admission guidance in MBBS course for the said institution which was paid on June 14, 2014 vide cheque. The 4 Institutions to which the complainant was promised to be admitted are (i) Kasturba Medical College (Manipal), (ii) Sikkhim Manipal Institute of Medical Science (Sikkhim), (iii) KIMS (Odisha) & (iv) M.S. Ramhaiah (Bangalore). On June 5, 2018 the result of the NEET exam was published and the petitioner obtained the specified qualifying marks in the said entrance test and secured rank of 587674. This rank was communicated to the OP for securing admission to one of the 4 colleges mentioned in the agreement.
Pursuant to such agreement, the complainant has made payment of the following amounts in favour of the OP:
Sl No. Date of payment Mode of payment Amount 1 July 07, 2018 Vide cheque being No. 140739, dated July 07, 2018, drawn on Axis Bank, Tollygunge Branch Rs. 5,00,000/-2
July 07, 2018 cheque being No. 185062, dated July 07, 2018, drawn on SBI, R.G Kar Branch Rs. 5,00,000/-3
July 28, 2018 Cash Payment Rs. 10,00,000/-
Total Rs. 20,00,000/-
The counsel of the complainant submitted that the OP failed to secure admission of Sumana Kumar into any of the four Medical Colleges mentioned in the agreement dt. 14.06.2018. On the other hand he secured admission on his own in Sathyasai Medical College and Research Institute at Kanchipuram Tamil Nadu. Hence the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount paid to the OP.
In spite of service of notice upon the sole OP he did not enter appearance. In view of the decision of the Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (1) Supreme 319 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. -vs- Hill Multi Purpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.) the OP was debarred from filing W.V. Considered the complaint petition, submission of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and documents annexed. The points for consideration are:-
Is the complaint maintainable under the C.P. Act 1986?
Was there any negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP/respondents?
Is the complainant/appellant entitled to any relief as prayed for?
The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant paid a huge amount to the OP Dhrubojyoti Ganguly for consultancy for admission guidance in MBBS Course in any one of the four Medical Institutions specified in the agreement.
As per the C.P. Act, 1986 "service" means "Service of any description, which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to the provisions of the facilities in connection with (a) banking (b) financing (c) insurance (d) transport (e) processing (f) supply of electrical or other energy (g) boarding or lodging or both (h) house construction (i) entertainment (j) amusement or (k) the purveying of new or other information. But 'service' does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
It appears on consideration of the argument of the complainant and its provisions of C.P. Act, 1986 that "Consultancy for admission guidance" does not fall within the ambit of C.P. Act 1986.
So, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer. There is no deficiency in service. Complainant is not entitled to any relief under the C.P. Act, 1986.
It is ordered On consideration it is seen that 'consultancy for admission guidance' is not a service under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint case is therefore not maintainable and dismissed ex parte. There shall be no order as to the costs.
Free certified copies to be issued to all parties.
[HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE] MEMBER