Consumer Complaint No. 100 of 2017

Date of filing: 19.6.2017                                                                           Date of disposal: 07.7.2017

Complainant:               Tushar Agarwala – Minor, Represented by the mother, Jaya Agarwal as the natural and legal guardian, C/o. Ravindra Prasad, Asoke Avenue, PO: Chittaranjan, District: Paschim Bardhaman, PIN – 713 331.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:      1.   FIITJEE, A-3, Nandalal Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur – 713 216.

                              2.   FIITJEE Ltd., H.O.-23/A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi, 110 016.

Present:      Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:      Ld. Advocate, Biswajit Bandyopadhyay.

Order No. 04, Dated: 07.7.2017

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P.  Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in serviced, as well as, unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not reimburse the tuition fees to the complainant.

Today is fixed for filing the petition for condonation of delay. The petition for condonation of delay has been filed u/S. 24A of the C.P. Act on affidavit. Be it mentioned that on earlier occasion a petition for condonation of delay has been filed u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 2005. As there is separate provisions in the C.P. Act, 1986 for filing limitation petition, hence petition filed u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 2005 cannot be maintainable before this ld. Forum. For this reason the complainant has made endorsement on the margin of the said petition dated 07.7.2017. Thereafter, the complainant filed another petition u/S. 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 stating the cause for delay in filing this complaint.

Be it mentioned that on earlier occasion another complaint was filed by the complainant being No. 148/2016 which was dismissed due to several defects. Liberty was given to the complainant to file the complaint in proper manner in compliance with the settled law, if not barred otherwise. The said judgment was passed by this ld. Forum on 08.5.2017. It was the duty of the complainant to file this complaint being No. 100/2017 within 30 days from the date of passing of the earlier order, but the complainant has filed this complaint on 19.6.2017. Therefore, there is delay in filing this complaint and the complainant is under obligation to file another petition stating the cause for delay. On 07.7.2017 one petition has been filed u/S. 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 on affidavit but in the verification and affidavit portion signature has been made by Mrs. Jaya Agarwal. Within the fourcorners of the cause title of the petition u/S. 24A of the C.P. Act, nowhere the name of Mrs. Jaya Agarwal is mentioned. Hence, as it is difficult for us to detect or identify Mrs. Jaya Agarwal from the cause title of the said petition, who has filed affidavit, the said petition cannot be maintainable.

It is evident to us that complaint was filed on 19.6.2017. As per the C.P. Act, 1986 the complaint shall preferably be decided within 21 days from the date of its filing. As in the meantime 21 days has already been elapsed but this complaint has not been filed by the complainant in a proper manner as per settled law, hence the complaint be dismissed. Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being No. 100/2017 is hereby dismissed without being admitted.

Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated and corrected by me.                                                                

                  (Silpi Majumder)

                         Member

                DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                      (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)                        (Silpi Majumder)

                                                                 Member                                          Member   

                                                          DCDRF, Burdwan                          DCDRF, Burdwan