D.o.F:26/6/12
D.o.O:30/7/12
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.215 /2012
Dated this, the 30th day of July 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.RAMADEVI.P : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
K.Krishnadas,
S/o Late Maran Kavil Kunhiraman, : Complainant
Perol, Nileshwar.
(in person)
1. Chairman, Karavali Institute of Technology,
Neermarg, Mangalapuram.
2. Anoop, KSWA ,Besto Centre, Kanhangad.
3. The Dist. Collector, Kasaragod. : Opposite parties
4. Manager, SBT, Nileshwar.
5. Lead Bank Manager, Kasaragod.
6.Convener, State Bank Level Banker Committee,
Trivandrum.
7. Sutharia Keralam , Chief Ministers Public Grivence Cell,
Thiruvananthapuram.
ORDER
SMT.RAMADEVI.P : MEMBER
That the complainant filed this complaint against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service aginst them. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant’s daughter Shabna Das. K was admitted in Ist opposite party Institute for 2nd year Engineering course by paying 1,00,000/- through the SBT Nileshwar branch. After admitting the complainant’s daughter the Ist opposite party asked her to write the Ist year’s examination and for that purpose the complainants daughter was taken to Bangalore for entrance examination. Due to the above difficulties the complainant’s daughter stopped her studies in the Ist opposite party’s institute. She studied only 12 days in the above institute. Now she is studing in Cheemeeni Engineering College in Kerala. The complaint is that the Ist opposite party cheated the complainant and the Ist opposite party refused to refund the amount already paid by the complainant. The complainant received all the certificates belonged to his daughter from the opposite party only on interaction of the Chief Minister of Kerala. He also submitted application before the Chief Ministers’ Sutharia Keralam programme for getting his grievance. His prayer is to get compensation from the above mentioned opposite parties. But he has not stated in what way the above parties related in this case. He failed to state that what is the service availed by him from all those opposite parties except Ist opposite party. He has no case that on receiving consideration from him the other opposite parties except Ist opposite party refused any service and made any deficiency in their service. Hence we are of the opinion that there is no consumer relation with other opposite parties by the complainant . Therefore we are of the opinion that the other opposite parties except Ist opposite party are unnecessary parties in the complaint.
Then the other point is to be considered is whether the case against Ist opposite party is sustainable before this Forum.
Here the complainant’s daughter studied in 1st opposite party’s Institute at Mangalore and the cause of action of the complaint arose at Mangalore which is outside the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Hence the complaint is returned to the complainant to file it before the proper forum having jurisdiction against appropriate parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded By Order
Senior Superintendent
eva
