Complaint filed on: 20.06.2018

Disposed on: 01.07.2019

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027

CC.No.1045/2018

DATED THIS THE 01^st JULY OF 2019

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.R.Surendran,

Aged about 32 years,

S/o R.Rajamanickam,

Indira Nagar,

Opposite to Airtel Tower, Magundachavadi,

Salem-637103,

Tamil Nadu.

Inperson

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

The Indian Institute of

Planning and Management (IIPM)

IIPM Tower, 419,

4^th Block, 100ft Road,

Next to Canara Bank, Koramangala,

Bengaluru-34.

Present Address:

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM),

D-13/488, 60ft Road, Chattarpur,

New Delhi-110074.

Ex-parte

ORDER

MEMBER: SMT.ROOPA.N.R

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after called as OP), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant prays to direct the OP to apologize for all the inconvenience caused;  to refund of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 24%; to pay Rs.14 lakhs towards mental agony; to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

The Complainant submits that, he joined the MBA Program in the Bengaluru Chapter of OP institution on 18.06.14. The Complainant got admission and paid first installment of course fees of Rs.49,000/- on 12.06.14, another installment of Rs.50,000/- on 12.09.14 and another part of tuition fees of Rs.51,000/- on 13.10.14. The Complainant further submits that, during the time of admission, he had not been informed that OP would be transferred to Delhi. After completion of first semester examination, on 23.03.15 the OP informed to the students that Bengaluru chapter would be shifted to New Delhi. The Complainant did not agree the sudden intimation and opposed the unjust decision of OP.  The OP did not give any prior intimation to the Complainant. All students of Bengaluru chapter argued the matter and they did not accept the sudden decision and request the OP would be continue the chapter in Bengaluru and revoke the order. But OP was firmed in his decision and it was fed up the Complainant. Further, OP educational institution was not recognized by the UGC, New Delhi.

2a. The Complainant further submits that, various parts of National consumer forum declared that OP is a fake institution, in India, government did not reorganize the institution. National level higher forum also condemned the OP and it is cheated the innocent student of all over India. The Complainant was fed up with the news hearing about the institute. Hence, the Complainant issued legal notice. But OP did not give response. The Complainant approached the OP through phone calls, but OP not give any answer. Hence, Complainant filed this complaint.

3. After service of the notice from the Office, the OP did not appear before this forum and hence, they called out as absent and have been placed exparte.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the Complainant has filed his affidavit reproducing what he has stated in his respective complaint. The Complainant has filed written arguments and also produced documents which were marked. We have heard the arguments and gone through the oral and documentary evidence scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the complaint is not maintainable as barred by limitation ?

2. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?

3.  What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the affirmative

Point No.2:  Does not survive for consideration   

Point No.3:  As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. Point No.1: The Complainant submits that, he joined MBA programme in Indian Institute of Planning Management and got admission on 18.06.14 and paid Rs.49,000/- as first installment of course fees on 12.06.14. After the payment of fees, the Complainant attended his first semister classes. The Complainant paid another installment of course fees of Rs.50,000/- to the OP on 12.09.14. The Complainant paid another part of tuition fees of Rs.51,000/- to the OP on 13.10.14. After completion of the first semister examination, the institute informed to the students that Bengaluru Chapter would be shifted to New Delhi on 23.03.15 .

8. On perusal of the documents produced by the Complainant, it show that, the above transaction done in last 4 years back. After 2 years 10 months, the Complainant issued notice to OP. At the time of filing the complaint, the Complainant filed an application for condone the delay along with affidavit. In his affidavit, he submitted that, he seriously suffered from jaundice and gone for country to take medical treatment for 2 years. At that time, he could not walk and was bedridden. But, he did not produce any supporting documents to show the medical ground reason for condone the delay. So this application is rejected.

9. In the instant case, the cause of action arose in 23.03.15, when the Complainant got information that the OP institution transferred to Delhi. On the basis of such cause of action, the Complainant cannot agitate even in civil court as it was barred by limitation after expiry of 3 years in 2018 itself. Such time barred claims cannot be allowed and to be made ground for getting relief before the consumer forums, where the limitation period is two years U/s.24A of CP Act. After expiry of limitation period, the right and obligations get settled. It would be against the principle of justice to unsettle, such settled matters as observed in 1992 (2) CPR 663/666 RD.Chinoy vs. Central Bank of India. Hence this complaint filed in 2018 after lapse of 3 years of starting of cause of action is barred by limitation. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

10. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, this issue does not survive for consideration.

11. Point no.3: In view of our findings on point no.1 & 2, the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 01^st July of 2019)

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.R.Surendran, who being the Complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s: