DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.137/12

Shri Ravinder Singh

H.No. 23, Ponnymedow Way

Brampton, Ontario

Canada.                                                                        .…Complainant

                                                VERSUS

FORE School of Management

Through its Director

B-18, Qutub Institutional Area

New Delhi.                                                                     ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution: 04.04.2012

Date of Order       : 31.03.2023

President: Monika A Srivastava

Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs.70,000/- paid to the institute of OP. 

1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had taken admission in three year part time course PGDBM Program for the Academic Year 1999-2002 which was offered by the OP and for that he had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- in two instalments. 

2. Further it is the stated by the complainant that he only attended 2-3 classes but could not avail the services of the OP due to personal difficulty as his business was wound up and had to shift to his native place in Haryana.  Therefore, it is not possible for the complainant to commute to the institute for attending classes.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant approached the Registrar of the OP on various occasions seeking refund but the refund was not made which is causing wrongful loss to the complainant.

4. It is stated by the complainant that the said act amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the OP and it is their failure and neglect to pay the amount with interest. 

5. In their reply, the OP has first raised the preliminary objection that the complaint is not within time as the cause of action arose in 1999 and the case has been filed in the year 2012 i.e. there is a delay of 11 years.

6. The complainant has stated that the complaint is time barred but the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and was on account of unfavourable circumstances.  As he was mentally distressed and had poor health.

This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and it is clear that before deciding the case on merits it has to be decided whether the complaint has been filed within time, after going through the contents of complainant’s material, it is found that the complainant was busy in following the pursuits of his life i.e. getting married, completing his education, finding match for his sister, taking care of his old father and then a gap of 10 years which is unexplained, he decided to pursue his remedy against the OP.  In this regard, the complainant has also relied on various judgments.

1. Prabhas Vs. Ram Prakash Katara, AIR 1987 SC 1726
2. Smt. Hansaben Girish Kumar Vs. Girish Kumar Babulal Raja 1984   (1) Civil LJ 367 (GUJ)
3. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353
4. Cosmopolitan Hospital Vs. Vasanth P. Nayyer 1993 CCJ 198
5. APJ School Vs. M.K. Sangal 1993 (2) CPR 62
6. Atam Prakash Khatter Vs. Commissioner, Secretary, Govt. of Haryana.

Before this Commission can go into the details of the case in on merits it is important to decide whether the case has been filed within the limitation period.

As has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission in Gian Gupta vs DDA CC No. 155/2010 decided on 16.08.2021 “The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality.”

Having gone through the reasons written by the complainant this Commission is of the view that the complaint is time barred and no such reason has been cited by the complainant so as to have delay of 10 years in filing the complaint condoned. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this complaint is belatedly time barred and therefore deserves to be dismissed.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.