NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/444/2013

Shri ASHUTOSH BANSAL, - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHETANA'S INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH, - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

03 Jan 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 444 OF 2013
 
1. Shri ASHUTOSH BANSAL,
2362, Hudson Line, Mall Road,
DELHI - 110009.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. CHETANA'S INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH,
Survey No. 341, Govt. Colony, Bandra (E),
MUMBAI - 400051
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Complainant :IN PERSON
For the Opp.Party :

Dated : 03 Jan 2014
ORDER

1. Ashutosh Bansal (the complainant herein) has filed this consumer complaint against the opposite party institute alleging deficiency in service. 2. Briefly stated, allegations in the complaint are that the complainant being induced by the misrepresentation of the opposite party regarding the placement figures of its students, took admission in PGDM course in the opposite party institute for the academic year 2007-2009. This has resulted in ruining of his career. It is also alleged that although the opposite party institute had sanction for admission of 300 students in the academic year 2007-2009, admitted 8 more students including the complainant. This according to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, complainant has sought following reliefs: - i) Relief to be granted should be Rs.1,05,00,000/- (rupees One Crore and Five Lakhs Only) against the cheatings, misleading, misrepresentation of facts and mental agony. ii) and pay Rs.35,000/- as the cost of petition. iii) It should be checked that average placements which are wrongly quoted by college be verified by the students, companies of that year with the ITR, PAN and the Income Tax Authorities so that this whole scam should be disclosed. iv) that the accused should be punished severely so that culprits of similar kind would be afraid to indulge in such activities. Fees-DD No: 252593 amounting Rs.5,000/- Bank of Baroda, Dtd. 05-12-2013. 3. The complaint has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation on 23.12.2013 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. 4. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act provides for two years period of limitation for filing a consumer complaint. However, the complaint filed after the expiry of two years from the date of cause of action can be entertained provided there are special reasons for condoning such delay. 5 .The reason for delay is given in para-3 of the application for condonation of delay which is reproduced thus: - his delay in filing the Petition is because I was not fully aware of all cheats of college and after the delay/denial of College for necessary documents and information. After that also I have to collect information through RTI. Even I had tried to settle the case amicably with college by sending them notice but they even did not take it on serious note. 6. The above reason given in the application is vague. It does not spell out the date on which the complainant came to know about the misrepresentation practiced by the opposite party, the date on which the opposite party declined to given necessary documents/information and the date on which RTI application was moved and the information was received. Therefore, we find ourselves unable to accept the explanation for delay by the complainant. 7. We may note that as per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant took admission in the opposite party institute in the year 2007 and passed out in the year 2009. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arose during said period. The complaint has been filed more than four years after passing out from the opposite party- institute, meaning thereby that there is a delay of more than two years in filing of the complaint. Since the complainant has failed to give a reasonable explanation for delay, we are not inclined to condone the delay. 8. Application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the complaint is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

 
......................J
AJIT BHARIHOKE
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
SURESH CHANDRA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.