SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ODISHA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Dr. D.P. Choudhury President
The Director of Xavier Institute of Management
& Enterpreneurship & Anr. – Appellants
versus
Sujay Ghose – Respondent
First Appeal No. A/373/2018
(Arisen out of Order Dated 27/03/2018 in Case No. CC/126/2017 of District Puri)
Decided on 4.7.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant No. 1:M/s. R.K. Pattnaik & Assoc., Advocate
For the Respondent – Respondent in person present.

IMPORTANT POINT
When OP could not provide hygienic food and water, which compelled complainant student to discontinue course, loss to complainant’s career cannot be compared with financial loss of OP.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41) – First Appeal - Complainant deposited fees of Rs.3,10,000/- with OP for admission - Due to spicy food and unhygienic water at OP’s hostel, complainant suffered from colitis and got treated – Complainant requested OP to refund 2nd and 3rd instalment tuition fee, caution deposit and institution uniform fees of Rs.1,85,000/- as wanted to discontinue the course and sent letters – Complainant filed complaint before Distt. Forum – Complaint proceeded ex-parte in favour of Complainant wherein OP was directed to refund amt. of Rs. 1,54,000/- with interest @9% p.a., Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2000 as litigation costs – OP filed Appeal - Reason to believe that OPs did not appear before Ld. District Forum to contest as it has no dispute with facts proved by complainant - Complainant proved negligence and deficiency of service on part of OPs by not considering complainant’s several requests either to remove the defect or to refund tuition fee when he discontinued the course - When OP could not provide hygienic food and water which compelled complainant student to discontinue course, loss to complainant’s career cannot be compared with financial loss of OP – Negligence and unfair trade practice on part of OP.

(Paras 3, 6, 14, 15, 19, 20 & 21)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

FINAL ORDER / JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in person on V.C.

2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant got his admission in OP-Institute on 15.06.2015 to prosecute to PGDM programme course. The complainant alleged inter-alia that he has deposited fees of Rs.3,10,000/- with OP under latter’s institution in shape of Demand Draft to take admission and obtained receipt thereof. After taking admission the complainant alleged about the unhygienic water and spices food served in hostel of institution for which the complainant became seriously ill. He came back to his home at Puri and got himself treated there and at Bhubaneswar. The doctor diagonised him suffering from chronic colitis due to such food and water supply while he was living in hostel of OP-institution.

4. It is alleged that the health condition of the complainant did not improve, he has to discontinue his study with intimation to the OP. The OP only refunded Rs.31,000/- in shape of cheque and the complainant stated to have not received that amount. The complainant informed the OP that he is entitled to get back Rs.3,10,200/- from the OP, but the OP did not refund the same. So, the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP, filed the complaint U/S-12 of the Act before the learned District Forum,Puri. Hence, the complaint.

5. The OP has been set-exparte in this case as they did not appear inspite of receipt of notice.

6. The learned District Forum,after perusing the case of the complainant passed the following order:-

Xxx xxx xxx

“The case is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.1,54,000/- to the complainant together with interest thereof at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.5.2017 till the date of actual payment. The Ops are also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The above payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this orders. “

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the impugned order without giving opportunity to the OP to hear them on the maintainability of the case. He submitted that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute U/S-11 of the Act. He further submitted that learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact that the entire transaction took place at Kochi and no any part of cause of action arose at Puri for which the learned District Forum,Puri lacks territorial jurisdiction.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned District Forum has erred in law by not considering the facts that the OP has no any negligence on their part and since it is a educational institution, the consumer complaint is not maintainable. According to him ‘Education’ is not subject of service under definition of the Act. Moreover he submitted that as complainant left institute, OP has to bear the loss of one seat lying vacant which is loss to OP-Institution. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

9. The respondent appearing on V.C. submitted that the OP willfully did not participate inspite of receipt of notice. He also submitted that he has been treated at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and at Puri by senior govt. doctor after being affected by the unhygienic water and food served in the hostel of OP. He also submitted that the money for fees demanded by OP has been transacted from Puri to the OP.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top