IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 25th day of December 2010 CC/33/2010 K.K.Scaria, Kochukaipel House, Chandanakkmpra.P.o.Via.Payyavoor. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.V.A.Satheesh) 1. Dr.Pam Abraham, Director, Carmel Engineering College, Perunad, Pathanamthitta Dist. 2.The Principal, Director, Carmel Engineering College, Perunad, Pathanamthitta Dist. (Rep. by Adv.Cherian Geevarughese) Opposite parties O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President Heard. The son of the complainant attracted by paper advertisement got had joined in opposite parties college complainant had pair Rs.76, 000/- at the time of admission and thereafter an amount of Rs.50, 000/- by way of demand draft. When classes started it was realized that there were no qualified professors and the teachers are only MBA holders. More over no assignments were given to students. When it was brought to the notice of College Authorities opposite parties started harassing complainant’s son and other students. Since the harassment continued the complainant’s son had sought transfer from the institutions and joined in another college for MBA course. Hence this complaint to refund the amount. The complainant is residing within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the opposite party has been functioning at Pathanamthitta District. We heard the counsel for the parties and perused the available documents on record. The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum since his son happened to seek admission reading advertisement appeared in the News paper circulated in the place of his residence, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. According to 11(2) of the consumer protection Act a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum, within the local limits of whose jurisdictions, either the opposite party resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. In the case in hand complainant resides within the jurisdiction of this Forum whereas opposite parties are in Pathanamthitta District. The college wherein the son of complainant joined is in Pathanamthitta. The complainant and his son went to Pathanamthitta, payment of money made there joining for MBA course. Everything taken place in Pathanamthitta. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Merely because the advertisement papers in the News paper, which was read by complainant at place his residence does not give him a cause of action for approaching this Forum. But counsel for the complainant argued that the complaint is maintainable since the complainant read advertisement in Kannur District. He relied upon the decision by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Santhigiri Ashram vs. Moideen Hajee, 1988(2) KLT.702. That decision has no connection with the facts of the present case in hand. Therein the question is direct whether the advertisement itself can give rise to cause of action. In the present case in hand the reading of advertisement do not give raise any cause of action. In Santhigiri case the allegation is that defendant published an advertisement that an institution in the name and style “Santhigiri Health and complex” would be inaugurated by a Minster. The use of the word “Santhigiri” was alone with malicious intention of passing off their institution, service and products as that of the plaintiffs and therefore it violated the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. That means advertisement itself give rise to cause of action. Publication of that advertisement alone is sufficient enough to take a legal action by the complainant against the defendant. This situation has nothing to do with the facts of the case in hand. The alleged publication of advertisements does not give rise any legal right to complainant for an action where as the plaintiff in Santhigiri case suffered injury merely for the reason of publications of the advertisement. The reading of advertisement in the present case is nothing but gathering information with respect to the institution where son of the complainant sought admission for MBA course. Therefore, merely because complainant read the advertisement at Kannur, would not, in our opening constitute facts forming an integral part of the cause of action. It is quite obvious that this District Forum do not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It cannot be held that any part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence we dismiss the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to take back the complaint and file fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum. Complaint is hereby dismissed. Sd/- President Sd/- Member Sd/- Member /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
