The case of the complainant in nutshell is that Respondent No.1 issued advertisement inviting applications for admission in the academic year 2009-2010 and in the said advertisement, the respondent claimed to be a UGC Recognized Government University. This is also the case of the complainant that, in fact, respondent, Dravidian University, was not a UGC recognized institution for the academic year 2009-2010 for Ph.D. course. The complainant took admission in the said course by making payment at Dharamshala. However, the receipt issued to her was of Sh. Sai Institute of Vocational and Industrial Training at Pungh-Sundernagar (H.P.). (2) Initially, the complaint was filed at Gurdaspur but since the District Forum at Gurdaspur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it was withdrawn by the complainant and then filed before the District Forum at Dharamshala. However, he also withdrew the complaint from the District Forum at Dharamshala on 30.5.2014 and in view of his statement, the complaint was ordered to be returned to him for being presented before the appropriate Court/Forum. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum at Dharamshala, the complainant approached the State Commission, Himachal Pradesh by way of an Appeal. Taking note of the fact that the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant through her attorney, the said Appeal was dismissed. Being still aggrieved, complainant is before us by way of this Revision Petition. (3) In our opinion, considering the statement which the complainant had made through her attorney before the District Forum at Dharamshala on 30.5.2014, the State Commission was justified in dismissing the Appeal filed by her. Once the complainant/petitioner herself chose to withdraw the complaint, which she had filed before the District Forum at Dharamshala, she had no justification to challenge the order of the said Forum by way of an Appeal before the State Commission. If the statement before the District Forum was made under some kind of confusion or misunderstanding, the appropriate remedy for her was to approach the said Forum, for recalling the order on the ground that the statement was made under some misunderstanding/confusion. Be that as it may, in view of the statement made by her through her attorney Shri Tejinder Singh, who was none other than her husband, the complainant is precluded from challenging the order passed by the District Forum on 3.5.2014. (4) The next question, which arises for consideration, is as to where the complainant/petitioner can now file the complaint, which has been returned to her by District Forum at Dharamshala. On a perusal of the advertisement issued by the respondent, we find that Shri Sai Institute at Shimla, Near St.Mery School, Chakkar and Pungh, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, was an authorized Study & Examination Centre of the Dravidian University. We also find that the receipts issued to the complainant were of Shri Sai Institute of Vocational & Industrial Training at Pungh-Sundernagar. Obviously, the payment at Dharamshala was accepted from the complainant by or on behalf of Shri Sai Institute, Pungh-Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi. In view of the provisions contained in Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Pungh-Sundernagar would be competent to entertain and consider the complaint, which the District Forum at Dharamshala has returned to the complainant. The complainant, if so advised, may, therefore, file the said complaint before the District Forum having jurisdiction over the area of Pungh-Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi. The Revision Petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations. A copy of this order be given dasti to the petitioner under the signature of the Court Master. |
