DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of March 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R, President
: Smt.Suma.K.P, Member
: Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member Date of Filing : 07/03/2017
CC/47/2017
Akhil.V.R.
S/o.Ramachandran
Sekharathil House,
Ezhakkad (PO),
Kongad, Palakkad : Complainant
(By Adv.Shaik Abdulla)
Vs
Indian School of Commerce,
Nirmal Infopark,
Info Park (PO),
Kochi : Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President
Heard on admission. Complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The averments in the complaint are that the complainant had remitted admission fee of Rs.23,000/- to opposite party in order to join in CIMA course (Charted Institution of Management Accountants). At the time of remitting fee they offered that every student will get education loan from all the banks. Then the complainant approached the banks for getting education loan. But all the banks reluctant to give loan to the complainant by saying that they will not give education loan for the course conducted by the opposite party. Even after the repeated requests opposite party did not refund the fee to the complainant. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to refund Rs.23,000/- along with 18% interest and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
On perusal of complaint, it is found that opposite party institution is situated at Kochi and there is no branch at Palakkad. Complainant submitted in the complaint that the admission fee was remitted through Punjab National Bank Palakkad Branch.
Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act speaks about territorial jurisdiction
Section 11. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs))
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business, or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain, provided that in such either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
In Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipen Kumar Kohli 1(1995)CPJ 235 (NC) it was held that the mere fact that the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi received the earnest money in cash from the complainant and remitted it to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad does mean that part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
In the light of the above decision, we are of the view that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
In view of the above findings, without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint . Complainant is directed to approach appropriate Forum for relief.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of March 2017.
Sd/-Sd/- Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
Sd/- Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
