BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:116 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 16.04.2015.
Date of Decision:27.10.2016
Hari Om Sharma son of Sh. Jaibhagwan Sharma, resident of House No. 1252, Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani.
….Complainant
Versus
- I.S.P.A. Education Centre, H. No. 2, Gali No. 2, Jagat Colony, Opp. Rest House, Bhiwani through its Prop. Ravindera Kumar Singh son of Dr. R.N. Singh.
- Ravindera Kumar Singh son of Sh. R.N. Singh, resident of H. No. B-189, Sector-11B, Karkhunj Road, Avas Vikas Colony, Agra (U.P.)-282002.
- Shivendra Singh son of Sh. R.N. Singh, resident of H. No.B-189, Sector11B, Karkhunj Road, Avas Vikas Colony, Agra (U.P.)-282002.
…...Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri R.N. Rohilla, Advocate, for complainant.
None for OP no. 1.
Shri S.K. Sheoran, Advocate for Ops no. 2 &3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
By this order we will dispose of the application for dismissing the complaint moved by OP no. 2 & 3. Reply of which has also been filed on behalf of the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- on 29.06.2009 in the joint saving Bank account of Ops no. 2 & 3 in account No. 01211330008539 in HDFC Bank, Bhiwani as required by them for giving the coaching and supply the sturdy material/books and expert professional notes for better education and getting the admission in Ph.D. in English. It is alleged that the Ops no. 2 & 3 failed to run the coaching centre at Bhiwani and also failed to supply the requisite study material/books and Expert professional notes to the complainant. It is alleged that he contacted many times telephonically to the Ops, but OP no. 1 always gave false assurances to give the coaching at Bhiwani and Ops no. 2 & 3 also failed to supply the study material and expert professional notes. It is alleged that the complainant got served legal notice dated 16.02.2015 upon the Ops no. 2 & 3 to make the payment of study material but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
3. On appearance, the Ops no. 2 & 3 filed written statement alleging therein that answering respondents are running coaching centre only for B.A. and M.A. classes at Agra and Ops have no concern with the alleged institution situated at Bhiwani. It is submitted that the complainant never contacted personally or telephonically with the answering respondents. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the complainant and Ops no. 2 & 3.
5. Learned counsel for the Ops no. 2 & 3 contended that as per the allegation of the complainant he deposited the fee of Rs. 45,000/- on 29.06.2009 and present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 16.04.2015 beyond the period of limitation of 2 years. Hence the complaint of the complainant is time barred. He further stated that the Ops no. 2 & 3 are residence of Agra (UP) and are not having any office or branch within the territorial jurisdiction Bhiwani. Therefore, this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of reply of the application. He submitted that Ops no. 2 & 3 have refused to make the payment to the complainant in the month of February 2015 and as such the complaint is within limitation. He further submitted that the Ops no. 2 & 3 has compromised in a case titled as Pardeep Bhardwaj Vs. Dr. Ravindera Kumar Singh and made the payment of Rs. 45,000/- to him.
7. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have perused the relevant material on record. The complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence in support of his contention that the Ops no. 2 & 3 have denied to make the payment in February 2015. No letter or correspondence of Ops no. 2 & 3 has been brought on the file by the complainant. No application for condonation of delay has been moved by the complainant. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction nothing has been stated by the complainant in his reply to the application. Considering the facts of the case, we found force in the arguments of the counsel for the Ops no. 2 & 3, that the complaint has been filed by the complainant beyond the limitation period of 2 years as envisaged under Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act and this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed on the both grounds of limitation as well as on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.10.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
