Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1088/2016

Regional Collage For Education Reasearch & Technology through Chairman/Managing Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gagan Singh Rajawat S/O Late Shri Hem Singh Rajawat - Opp.Party(s)

Kailesh Sharma

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1088 /2016

 

Regional College for Education Research & Technology, ISI 17, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

Gagan Singh Rajawat r/o D 26 Prem Nagar, Jhotrawa, Jaipur & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 23.01.2017

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. Kailash Sharma counsel for the appellant

 

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 21.8.2015 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 344 days.

 

The contention of the appellant is that impugned order was passed on 21.8.2015. He was not having knowledge of the same. After receipt of the notice under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, he get the information of the order on 27.7.2016.

 

Further the contention of the appellant is that he never received the notices under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. On merit also it has been submitted that he is running an educational institute hence, the Forum below was not having jurisdiction. They had not committed any deficiency in service.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the

3

 

impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

Vide order dated 26.6.2015 the ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the appellant as inspite of registered notice he did not appear before the Forum below. Hence, presumption has made against the appellant. The notice annexed to the file contains the address of the appellant which is the same address on which notice under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act has been served upon the appellant. The appellant himself has submitted the envelope for the same. Hence, it could not be believed that the appellant was not served with the notice under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the same address when notice under section 27 was served. In view of the above it could very well be concluded that the absence of the appellant was willful and hence, there is no reasonable and sufficient ground to condone the extra ordinary delay of 344 days. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

 

The merit has also been considered. The case of the respondent is that he get admission with the appellant. He deposited the fees for the course as well as for the examination but he was not allowed to appear in the examination and no

4

 

explanation has been given by the appellants here as why the consumer has not been allowed to be appear in the examination. Hence, the deficiency on the part of the appellant is rightly been held by the Forum below.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the Forum below was not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint but here in the present case it was not the statutory duty of the appellant to conduct the examination. He has just to forward the application to respondent no. 2 & 3 which has not been done by the appellant. Hence, he cannot get shelter of the issue of jurisdiction and in view of the above there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and liable to be rejected on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm