STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. The Vice-Chancellor, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, 333031  (Rajasthan).

2. The Admission Officer, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, 333031  (Rajasthan).

……Appellants

V E R S U S

Abhishek Mengi, son of Virender Kumar, resident of H. No. 3413, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.

             ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Chanan Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.12.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-

“In view of above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the OP was deficient and unjustified in its act and has also indulged in an unfair trade practice. Accordingly, it is our considered view that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it deserves acceptance. Therefore, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OP. The OP is directed to refund to the complainant the balance amount of Rs.47,000/-, after deducting Rs.1000/- as service/ processing/ administrative charges, besides costs of litigation assessed at Rs.10,000/-, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the sum of Rs.46,000/-, alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.10.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-`’.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant, after depositing the requisite entrance fee and qualifying the examination, was selected for admission to M.Sc. (Tech) General Studies, with the Opposite Party (now appellants). On the direction of the Opposite Party, he also deposited Rs.55,000/-, as advance fee, through bank draft.  Thereafter, the complainant, got admission in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. It was stated that the complainant, immediately, on 2.8.2009, made a request to the Opposite Party, to refund the admission fee and give the original certificates. After a number of requests, the complainant, received the letter dated 8.10.2009, from the Opposite Party, intimating therein, that the fee had been forfeited, as he had not submitted the withdrawal form. It was stated that the complainant, was only refunded Rs.8,000/-, as mess advance and caution deposit, out of Rs.55,000/-. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, of the Opposite Party, in not refunding the full amount of fee, deposited by the complainant, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Party, put in appearance, and filed its written version. While admitting the factual matrix of the case, it was pleaded, that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, as no cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh. It was stated that the entire cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Pilani, Rajasthan. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, did not fall  within the category of a service provider, qua the complainant. It was admitted, that one of the Centers of the Opposite Party, had been designated at Chandigarh, for conducting competitive examination for admission. It was further stated that the tuition fee, was paid by the complainant, at Pilani, through Bankers` cheque. It was denied that on 2.8.2009, the complainant made any written request to the Opposite Party, to refund the admission fee and return the original certificates. It was further stated that the complainant, for the first time, applied for withdrawal of admission and refund of the deposited fee on 5.10.2009, vide   Annexure R-1. It was further stated that the complainant was not entitled to any refund, except, an amount of Rs.8,000/- as mess advance, caution deposit etc., which amount was refunded to him. It was further stated that by withdrawing at a later stage, the complainant had caused a considerable loss to the Opposite Party. It was further stated that by not refunding the entire fee, to the complainant, the Opposite Party, was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Party in the District Forum.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellants, assailed the order of the District Forum, on the sole ground, that it had no jurisdiction,  to entertain and decide the complaint, as no cause of action, whatsoever, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh. He further submitted, that since the District Forum, had no jurisdiction, it fell into a grave error, in accepting the complaint.  He further submitted, that the order of the District Forum, being without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside.

9.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the complainant applied for admission to the M.Sc. (Tech) General Studies Course being run by the appellants/Opposite Party. It is evident,  from Annexure A-2, dated 17.01.2009, that the complainant deposited Rs.1000/-, in the account of the appellants/Opposite Party, maintained with the ICICI Bank, Sector 35, Chandigarh. Not only this, the Opposite Party/appellants, in its written reply, in clear-cut terms stated that the complainant had been allotted, one of its Centers at “BITSAT Centre, C/o University Institute of Engineering & Technology, South Campus, CAD Lab, Panjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh”. It was, in this Centre, which was allotted to the complainant vide Annexure C-3, that the complainant appeared for the competitive examination,  for admission to the Course, in question, of the appellants. When the test held on 15.05.2009, was cleared by the complainant, a demand of Rs.225/-, was made by the appellants/Opposite Party, on account of the application form. It is evident, from Annexure A-5 dated 17.06.2009, that a sum of Rs.225/-,  on the demand of the appellants/Opposite Party, was deposited by the complainant, in its account, in ICICI Bank, Sector 35, Chandigarh. Annexure A-6, is the letter dated 01.07.2009, written by the appellants/Opposite Party, to the complainant, at his Chandigarh address,  informing him that he was selected for admission to M.Sc(Tech.) General Studies Course at Pilani Campus. He was further directed to pay advance fees of Rs.55,000/-. The complainant  sent the fees, through bank draft, against which a certificate dated 02.08.2010, Annexure A-7, was issued by the ICICI Bank, Sector 35C, Chandigarh. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident, that a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh. According to Section 11(c) of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, at a place, where  even a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant. Since, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, in the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to the effect, that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, therefore, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

10.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.

11.           The order passed by the District Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 24, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg