DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/132/2019

No. DF/ Central/

Dr Kadambari Patel

D/o Shri Brijesh Kumar Kanoujia,

R/o G-529, HIG Awas Vikas 1, Kalyanpur,

Kanpur – 208020, Uttar Pradesh

Also At:

66 C, CB Block, Hari Nagar,

Delhi – 110 064

                                                                                          …..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 

Though It’s Director,

4-B, 2nd Floor, Grover Chamber , Pusa Road,

New Delhi - 110005                                                                           

                                                                                            …..OPPOSITE PARTY                    

Quorum:    Ms. Rekha Rani, President

        Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

        Shri R.C. Meena, Member

ORDER

Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

1.     Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) alleging therein that complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide receipt no. 58390 in April 2016 and Rs. 90340/- vide receipt No. 58955/- as tuition fee for MD/MS regular course with the OP.  The classes for the above said course commenced on 20/04/2016 and complainant started attending the classes as per the schedule. It is further stated that after attending few initial classes the complainant was constrained to discontinue course due to her health condition which started deteriorating and complainant was 

advised bed rest.  After consulting various Doctors it was found that complainant is suffering from depression OCT / Bulimia and was advised to stay away from stressful environment and discontinue the coaching classes.   Complainant contacted the OP and requested that amount of Rs. 105340/- may be refunded as after 04 days the complainant has discontinued the course. On 08/12/2016 the complainant sent an e-mail requested the OP to refund the fee but received no reply of the same thereafter complainant sent email dated 16/12/2016, 18/12/2016 and 13/01/2017 requesting the OP to refund the fee mentioning about her ill health but no response was received from the OP.  

     Complainant sent legal notice to OP on 07/03/2018 but OP did not reply the same.  On 30/05/2019 complainant again sent a legal notice but without any response. Complainant prayed that OP be directed to refund the entire fee of Rs. 1,0,5340/- after deducting the proportionate fee of three classes attended by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per month from the date of discontinuation of classes, award compensation for delay in making the refund and award Rs. 1,00,000/-  for mental harassment, agony and litigation cost.  

     The complaint is at admission stage.   We have heard learned counsel for Complainant.  Complainant has pleaded that she has joined the OP academy for MD/MS Regular Course in April 2016 and discontinued the course after attending  three classes in the first week of May 2016 as she was suffering from depression, OCD/Blumia and was advised by the Doctor to stay away from stressful environment.    

           On perusal of record it is revealed that complainant has neither placed on record the receipts issued by OP in lieu of the fee deposited nor prescription of the doctor vide which she was advised to stay away from stressful environment.  The prescription filed by complainant only find mention of the medicine and no such advice to stay away from stressful environment.

         Complainant sent an email to OP on 08/12/2016 asking for refund of her fee.  But OP did not respond thereafter complainant sent email on 13/01/2017 but the same was also without any response.  Complainant sent legal notice on 07/03/2018 and thereafter on 30/05/2019 also.

    Limitation does not start or end by sending e-mails or legal notice to the OP.  The cause of action accrued on April 2016 when complainant deposited the fee amount and on 20/04/2016 when the regular course commenced and the complaint has been filed on 07/06/2019.   Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act defines the period within which the complaint is to be filed and the same reads as under : 

24-A.  ‘‘Limitation Period : - 

(1)  The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

    Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.’’       

          Complainant is not an illiterate.   She is an MBBS and she knows what recourse is to be taken to get  her grievance redressed as in the email dated 30/01/2017 she has mentioned that in case of declination she will reach the head office with her lawyer for legal proceedings.  Law and equity aid the vigilant and not the indolent. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development , (2011) 14 SCC 578 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as Consumer Protection Act specifies special period of Limitation, object of expeditious adjudication of Consumer disputes would be defeated if belated petitions are entertained.  

      In Ramlal Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd , AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it was observed that diligence of the party or its bonafides are relevant facts to determine whether or not delay is reasonably and sufficiently explained.

In N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy VII (1998) SCR 334 the Hon’ble Supreme court observed as under:

 “ Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so 

suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each 

remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.”

     The complainant in the instant complaint has failed to give any cogent reason for the delay in filing the complaint.  In view of the judgements cited above it is clearly stated that statute provide for specific limitation in filing the claim it vests right with the OP on expiry of said limitation period which right should not deviate by casual condonation of unexplained delay.  In view of the reasons stated above the complaint is barred by limitation and the same is dismissed. A copy of the order be sent to complainant as per statutory requirement.   File be consigned to record room.          

Announced on this 26th Day of July  2019.