| District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
| South 24 Parganas |
| Baruipur, Kolkata-700 144 |
| |||||||||||
|
| BEFORE: | |
| SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL PRESIDENT | |
| JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN MEMBER | |
| SMT. SANGITA PAUL MEMBER |
| PRESENT: |
| Final Order / Judgement |
Smt. Sangita Paul, Member This is a case filed by Kamireddy Midde, S/o. Prathap Reddy C/o.Kaireddy Midde Ramakrishna Reddy, 3-71, Managapatnam Haveli, Sodamapalle, Narpala, Ananthapuram, Andhra Pradesh-515425 against Bandhan Konnagar, H.O. – DN-32, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091, P.O. –Bidhan Nagar, C K Market, P.S. – Bidhan Nagar, West Bengal, India and Bandhan School of Development and Management (BSDM) with a prayer for directing the OP to hand over the certificate with proper affiliation from any recognized institution, to give the break ups of the said fees of Rs.4,02,500/- loan from Bandhan Bank Limited, to hand over the said loan amount of Rs.4,02,500/- to the complainant as no authentic certificate has been issued to the complainant having affiliation from any recognized institution, to give proper certificate having affiliation from a recognized university, to pay compensation for mental and physical harm and for ruining the time and career of the complainant, Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- for OP No.1 is Bandhan Konnagar, H.O. – DN-32, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091, P.O. –Bidhan Nagar, C K Market, P.S. – Bidhan Nagar, West Bengal, India. OP No.2 is Bandhan School of Development and Management (BSDM), the address is Dr. B. C. Roy Road, Kalitala, Rajpur, Kolkata-700 149. The complainant, by filing the case states that he is an unemployed youth. The complainant came to know about Bandhan Bank Limited, having his head office at Kolkata. The OP introduced a one-year course in collaboration with Bandhan Konnagar viz Bandhan Bank Next gen course for the young graduates through its self made man-of-Development and Management. The duration of the course was 12 months and the complainant had to stay for 9 months at the official residence and the rest 3 months were allotted for a job training at different branches of Bandhan Bank Limited. For taking part in the next Gen Banker Programmme the complainant updated his bio-data. After few months, a written examination, an interview were taken. Then the selection of the complainant was confirmed. The complainant was admitted to the programme for Post Graduate Course. The OP gave false promises that a bright future was awaiting for the complainant. The certificate is of great value. The complainant paid course fee of Rs.4,02,500/- in favour of the institute. The complainant also paid Rs.25,000/- for reservation of the seat on 22.06.2017 vide money receipt in favour of Bandhan Konnayar.
After payment by the complainant, Bandhan Bank disbursed “Perusal Loan” in the name “Next Gen Yuva Loan”. The loan was directly paid to Bandhan Konnagar. In this case, Fair Banking Rules were not maintained by Bandhan Bank. The complainant was given “personal loan” instead of “educational loan” The certificate which was issued and provided to the complainant was not affiliated to any university, nor falls under the UGC Certification Act, nor is endorsed by any competent authority. Besides, the education imparted was not up to the mark. The complainant was not entitled to get job in other banks. That the cause of action of this instant suit arises from the date of Agreement dated 28.05.2018 and it is still continuing. Hence the complainant prays for directing the OP to handover the certificate with proper affiliation from any recognized institution, to give the break ups of the said fees of Rs.4,02,500/-, the loan from Bandhan Bank Ltd. to hand over the said loan amount of Rs.4,02,500/- to the complainant as no authentic certificate has been issued to the complainant, having affiliation from any recognized institution, to give proper certificate, having affiliation from a recognized university, to pay compensation for the mental and physical harm and for ruining the time and career of the complainant, Rs.04,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- for handling cases in different courts. That the case was filed on 05.01.2022. The case was admitted on 17.01.2022. Notice was served upon the OPs on 28.02.2022. No W/V was filed by the OP. Hence, the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP. On 27.07.2022, the complainant files evidence on affidavit. On 02.12.2022 the complainant files BNA. Argument was heard. Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement. Points for consideration :-
Decision with reasons :- Point No.1 & 2 :- Both the points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion as they are interlinked. On perusal of documents and records, filed by the complainant, it appears that the complainant was admitted to 1-year course on Management viz. NexGen Banker Programme”. The OP presented a rosy picture of the course. The complainant after clearing written examination and interview was admitted to the said course. The complainant paid Rs.04,02,500/- for the said course. The duration of the course was 9 months and afterwards, there was a provision of training of 9 months and a provision of in-service training of 3-months. The complainant completed all the 3 phases. Now the question is whether the complainant is a “consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant in this case cannot be treated as a “consumer” according to C P Act, 2019. The complainant was admitted to Bandhan School of Development and Management. The institute imparts education. As the education is not a commodity and the educational institutions are not service providers, no question of deficiency in service arises. Such matters are not maintainable in the Consumer Commission. Consumer Commission is not entitled to entertain such cases under Consumer Protection Act. Let us go through the following citations to come to a definite conclusion :-
In view of the argument advanced by the authorized representative of the complainant, and discussions made herein above, we are of the opinion, that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.Both the points are thus decided in favour of the OPs and against the complainant.
In the result, the case of the complainant fails. Hence, it is, Ordered That the instant complaint case be and the same is dismissed without contest as not maintainable.We pass no order as to cost. The final order will be made available in www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me. Sangita Paul Member |
| [ SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL] |
| PRESIDENT |
| [ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN] |
| MEMBER |
| [ SMT. SANGITA PAUL] |
| MEMBER |
very useful
ReplyDelete