KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 446/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 15.5.09 PRESENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Cuckoo Anna Raju, : APPELLANT Represented by Father Raju.K.Mani, Kanjirathikkachirayil, Vadavathoor.P.O., Kottayam. (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura) Vs. 1. Ashwin C.Muthaiah, : RESPONDENTS Chairman-Governing-Council, MA Chidambaram College of Nursing, Voluntary Health Services, Adayar, TTTI Post, Chennai. 2. Principal, -do- do- 3. Secretary, Indian Nursing Council, Combined Council Building, Temple Lane, Kotta Road, New Delhi-2. 4. P.G.Iype, M.C.Academy, Pallam, Kottayam (By Adv.P.A.Mathew, counsel for 1 & 2) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in the file of OP.No.440/03 order dated 27.4.04. The appellant is the complainant in the above said OP who prefers this appeal from the above said order. 2. The brief of the complaint is that the complainant is represented by her father, is a power of attorney holder. The 1st opposite party is the Chairman-Governing Council of M.A.Chidambaram College of Nursing, Voluntary Health Services and 2nd opposite party is its Principal. The 4th opposite party is a authorised agent of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and the 4th opposite party is having at his office Pallom, Kottayam. He made arrangements for the admission of the petitioner in the College for BSc Nursing course. Petitioner joined the BSc nursing course of the college during October 2001. At the time of the admission the 2nd opposite party forced her to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash as donation and other incidental expenses and gave receipt only for 28,000/- and that too in a piece of paper. The 2nd opposite party issued another cash receipt on 19.10.01 for Rs.27575/- which was also not properly stamped. Opposite parties 1 and 2 made the petitioner believed that the institution had proper recognition from the 3rd opposite party, the Indian Nursing Council. The petitioner after joining the institution realized that it was not following the norms and procedure of the Indian Nursing Council. The petitioner’s father questioned this to the 2nd opposite party as a result of which, 2nd opposite party is at enmical terms with the petitioner. Some of the teachers and office staff tried to torture the petitioner, physically and mentally with illmotive and she was forced to leave the premises of the college for fear of life. The petitioner’s father approached the authorities of the college for the refund of the huge amounts collected from them and also for return of original certificate entrusted with them. But they refused to do so on some lame excuses. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties publically violating the norms of the 3rd opposite party and are forcing the students to give huge amount of donation and capitation fees and issuing receipt for a small amount that too in a piece of paper/ As the arrangements for admission were made by the 4th opposite party pertail cause of action were arisen within the jurisdiction of the forum. Hence this petition is filed for return of original certificates, for refund of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the petitioner with interest and also for compensation for the loss of academic year, physical and mental harassment etc. and for costs and other reliefs. The opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 entered appearance and filed their detailed written version. The 3rd opposite party failed to appear and set ex parte. 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed their joint version and contended that complainant is not a consumer coming within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. They also raised a contention that original petition is not maintainable before the Forum below as the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Moreover there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, MA Chidambaram College is a Education foundation of public Charitable trust. They claimed that this is one of best College in the country. The complainant joined the four year BSc degree course in nursing in the college during the academic year 2001-2002. The claim of the petition that he was forced to pay 2lakhs as donation and other incidental expenses at the time of admission is false. She was selected against the vacancy quota of seats under government quota. She remitted the fees as prescribed under that quota and the 2nd opposite party has not collected any amount in excess. They also denied that the acceptance of donation. The 2nd opposite party contended that they collected only Rs.21575/- from the complainant at the time of her admission towards the admission fee, reimbursing charges etc. They issued the proper receipt dated 19.10.01. The 2nd opposite party collected Rs.6000/- from the complainant towards tuition fee for the 1st year BSc Nursing course. They issued the proper receipt. The balance amount of Rs.28000/- was collected towards fee for admitting the petitioner against the vacancy for which also receipt dtd. 21.10.01 . The fee collected is as per the government stipulated fees and the petitioner has not paid any other amount. BSc nursing course of the college has necessary approval from the statutory authorities and all the norms and procedure as laid down by the 3rd opposite party (Nursing Council of India) are being followed and implemented. The teachers and office staff working in the college are professionally well qualified. If any of them had tortured the petitioner physically and mentally, other students in the college would not be mere spectators. The allegation of the petitioner that she had to leave the college for fear of life is false. The opposite parties have never refused to return the original certificates of the petitioner. The 2nd opposite party informed the petitioner on 25.7.02 to collect the certificates in person. But she did not come. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have not authorized the 4th opposite party or any other person as their agent for admission. Therefore no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Forum below and as such, the petitioner is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Opposite parties are always ready and willing to return the original certificates to the petitioner. She could have very well continue the course. Having left the course on her own violation, she now claim compensation from the opposite parties. As such they are not responsible for loss of academic year if any, caused to the petitioner. Opposite parties have not violated any norm issued by the 3rd opposite party. She left the institution during the middle of academic year as a result of which, opposite parties 1 and 2 could not fill up the vacancy. On this count the institution sustained loss approximately Rs.2,40,000/-. Hence they have prayed for dismiss the petition. The 4th opposite party filed separate version and contended that he has not the agent of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. He denied the father of the petitioner went to him and engaged about the 1st opposite party. As he is not the agent of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties he informed him the fact that he was not able to give any information about the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to the petitioner’s father. The 4th opposite party did not insist the petitioner to join the said college. He did not received any money or remuneration from the petitioner for any purpose, not did he register her name in his office. The 4th opposite party is authorized agent of some other educational institutions. No cause of action has been arisen against the 4th opposite party. Petitioner has purposefully impleaded 4th opposite party in order to get jurisdiction of this Forum to file the petition. Hence 4th opposite party has prayed to dismiss the petition. 3. The Forum below raised the following issues: 1. Whether the petition is maintainable? 2. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? 3. Reliefs and cost. 4.From the part of the complainant Ext.A1 to A12 were marked as evidence and the affidavit of the petitioner was also filed. He examined as PW1. From the part of the opposite parties Ext.B1 to B18 were marked and DW1 Priya Johnson was examined as witness. Forum below examined all the points arised for consideration during the trial of the case. The Forum below answered rightly all the points arised for the consideration in this case. The Forum below dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petition is not maintainable that the Forum found that they have no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 5.No representation for the appellants. The counsel for the respondent is present. On so many posting dates the counsel for the appellants were absent. This Commission heard the counsel for the respondents and peruse the entire evidence from the case bundle. This Commission examined the grounds of the appeal memorandum filed by the appellant. The main question arised in this case is that the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below to try the case. The only ground to try the case is that the 4th respondent was staying within the jurisdiction of the Forum below. All other respondents and the educational institution, admission and payment of fees etc exclusively has done at out of the jurisdiction of this Forum below. There is no substantial evidence adduced by the complainant that the 4th opposite party who acted on behalf other opposite parties with the complainant or the father of the complainant within the jurisdiction of the Forum below. In the absence of such evidence no court of law have the jurisdiction to entertain the case . The cause of action was arised within or without the territorial jurisdiction of a court or Forum is the only grounds of the appeal memorandum. The appellant raised a contention that the Forum below has not to raised a separate point that the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The Forum below found that there the cause of action was arised out of the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The Forum below mentioned this point clearly in their judgment. The Forum dispose the case accordingly. This Commission is not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. The Forum below passed the order legally. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The points are answered accordingly. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
