THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CC(Misc.)- 03/2020

Arising out of CC No.68/2020

 

1. Smt. Sushmita Debnath,

D/O- Sri Hiralal Debnath,

Shibnagar, College Lake Paar,

P.S. East Agartala, P.O. College Tilla,

District- Tripura West, 799004.

 

2. Sri Hiralal Debnath,

S/O- Lt. Rashik Chandra Debnath,

Shibnagar, College Lake Paar,

P.S. East Agartala, P.O.- College Tilla,

District- Tripura West, 799004,

P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

District- West Tripura..........Complainants.

 

Vrs. 

 

1. N.S.H.M. College,

Represented by its Principal,

60(124), Basanta Lal Saha Road, 

Tara Park, Behala, Kolkata, 

West Bengal, 700053.

 

2. The Principal,

N.S.H.M. College,

60(124), Basanta Lal Saha Road,

Tara Park, Behala,

Kolkata, West Bengal-700053. 

 

3. The Director,

N.S.H.M. College,

60(124), Basanta Lal Saha Road,

Tara Park, Behala, Kolkata,

West Bengal, 700053.......Opposite parties.

 

-Present-

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

CC(Misc.)- 03/2020

Arising out of CC No.68/2020

 

 

 

Order

 

 

Lerned Advocte Mr. Diptanu Debnath is present for the complainant petitiner.

Learned Advocate Mr. Subhajit Deb is also present for the O.P.

On earlier occasions we heard both sides on the question of maintainability of the proceedings on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and also limitation. Today was fixed for passing necessary order. Hence, order is passed. 

In brief the complainants' case is that the complainant no.1 Sushmita Debnath after passing her graduation from Tripura institute of Para Medical Science in the year 2015 with the prospect of higher studies went to Kolkata along with her father and mother with a view to search out colleges which would be suitable for admission of the complainant no.1 in pursuing the course of M.B.A. During search they came to know about the college of O.P. No.1 for the purpose of admission of MBA. On discussions with the staffs of O.P. college complainant no.2 made a payment of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of admission in the course of MBA in the year 2015. Again in the last week of September, 2015 complainants went to Kolkata with a preparation to join the classes in the college of the O.P. for the academic year 2015-2017 and also to make payment of tuition fee, but shockingly on reaching the O.P. college they were told that the complainant no.1 can not join the classes for the  year 2015-2017 as she had not cleared the MAT or CAT or any other joint exam to make herself eligible to start her classes in the course of MBA for the academic year, 2015 though the O.P. college took the admission of complainant no.1 for academic year 2015-2017. Simultaneously complainant was asked to contact with the O.P. college after passing the MAT/CAT exam though her admission had already been accepted for the academic year of 2015-2017. Thereafter, O.P. No.1 appeared in the MAT exam in the year 2015 held in the month of December and she successfully cleared the MAT exam. Thereafter, the complainant made contact with the O.P. college regarding joining of the classes for the academic year of 2015-2017 but she was not allowed and she was told that she can join the classes for the academic year of 2016-2018. On such statements of the O.P. college the complainant got disappointed and asked the O.P. college to refund the admission fee of Rs.40,000/- as the complainant no.1 would not continue her classes in the college of the O.P. for the academic year 2016-2018. In the month of June, 2016 there was a Carrier Fair organized at Agartala where the O.P. college also participated in the said Carrier Fair and there the complainant No.1 made contact with the staffs of the O.P. college. In the fair the men of the O.P. college assured complainant no.1 that she will get discount if she got admitted for the academic year of 2016-2018 and for that purpose she is to make a payment of Rs.2000/- in advance as a token amount towards the semestar fees to secure her admission and the rest amount would be adjusted by the O.P. college at the time when the complainant visits the college at Kolkata with all her documents. The complainant no.1 being allured by such statement of the staffs of the O.P. college regarding discount she made a payment of Rs.2000/- on 08.06.2016 in favour of the O.P. college. Subsequently complainant no.1 and her father decided to continue the classes of the O.P. college for the academic year 2016-2018 and accordingly on 04.07.2016 the complainants made a payment of Rs.2,66,000/- towards tuition fees of  two semestar and they received the receipt. Ultimately complainants realized that the O.P. college cheated them and no discount was given in semestar fees and they were being misrepresented by the staffs of the O.P. college. Thereafter complainants decided to withdraw the admission of the complainant no.1 from the O.P. college and demanded to refund the total amount ie., Rs.3,08,000/-. Complainant no.1 on several occasions visited the O.P. college to get the refund but the refund was not made. Thereafter complainant was waiting to get the refund of the money and in the month of September 2016 she took admission in the Swami Vivekananda Institute of Science and Technology, Kolkata in the course of MBA. Ultimately after several visits the O.P. college  on 19.07.2017 transfered to the SBI Account of the Complainant no.1 lying with the SBI, Math Chowmuhani Branch a lump sum  of Rs.1,18,000/- only and the rest amount i.e., Rs.1,90,000/- was due. Subsequently, complainant made repeated demand for refund of the said amount but it is in vain. Having found no alternative the complainants filed  complaint before this Commission(Forum) U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986. In the complaint they mentioned that the cause of action of the suit arose firstly on 04.07.2016 when the complainants received the money bill from the college. 

At the admission stage of the complaint it was found that the case is barred by the period of limitation and subsequently the complainant filed an application U/S 24 A (2) of the C.P. Act 1986 for condonation of delay of 1538 days. And that petition was registered as case no. CC(Misc).04 of 2020. Notice was issued in respect of Misc. case and accordingly the O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 filed an objection petition challenging the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as well as on the question of limitation.

At the time of hearing Learned Counsel Mr. Diptanu Debnath submitted that period of limitation is 2 years and it will be counted from 22.03.2018. He also relied upon the order dated 08.03.2021 of Apex court passed in case Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) no. 3 of 2020 by which Hon'ble Apex Court relaxed the period of limitation on the ground of Covid 19 pandemic situation. Mr. Debnath further submitted that the condonation petition filed by the petitioner be allowed. In respect of territorial jurisdiction Mr. Debnath submitted that O.P. participated in a Carrier Fair organized at Agartala in the month of June,2016 and in that fair the men of O.Ps discussed with the complainant and also they approached the complainant to  join the college and for that purpose the semestar fees of Rs.2000/- was made payment at Agartala. So partial  cause of action has been arose at Agartala. So this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Subhajit Deb submitted  that the cause of action as per complaint petition as well as condonation petition arose on 04.07.2016 but no documents are submitted by the complainant/ petitioner to prove the date of cause of action and the date which shown is not correct. He further submits that from the facts of the complaint petition it is emerged that it was a matter of 2016 in respect of admission in the college of the O.P. but the instant complaint is filed on 19.09.2020 U/S 12 of the C.P. Act 1986. The reasons for delay as shown in the petition is not genuine and it is not reasonable and justifiable. So, the order of the Apex Court given relaxation of limitation is not applicable in the instant case. Mr. Deb further submits that U/S 11 of the C.P. Act 1986 the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum/Commission was at Kolkata not at Agartala. So, in view of the provision made under Section 11 of the C.P. Act, 1986, the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be rejected. Mr. Deb further submits that there is a decisions of the Apex Court as well as National Commission in respect of the subject matter of education that no complaint shall be entertained in respect of the education 

matter or admission to any school, college or university and it is the out side purview of Consumer Protection Act. So in view of the judgment passed by the National Commission and Apex Court the instant complaint is also not tenable in law.

We have meticulously gone through the complaint petition as well as condonation petition and the written objection submitted by the O.P. First of all we will decide the matter of condonation. In this petition it is prayed that the delay was 1538 days for filing the complaint from 04.07.2016, the day when the cause of action firstly arose. The condonation  petition is filed under Section 24 A(2) of C.P. Act 1986 on 03.11.2020. So, it is apparent that the complaint is filed about after four years and four months. On perusal of the petition we do not find any sufficient explanation causing inordinate dalay. So we are not satisfied on the petition filed by the petitioner U/S 24 A(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 for condoning delay of four years four months for filing the complaint. Hence, this condonation petition is not allowed. 

Now, we should discuss on the point of territorial jurisdiction. From the facts of the case it  is very much clear that the address of the O.Ps are situated at Kolkata, West Bengal.  Section 11 of C.P. Act 1986 provides that:-

  '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 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 case 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 the  instant case, the cause of action is wholly arose at Kolkata, West Bengal and the O.Ps are also residing at Kolkata. So, this District Commission(Forum) has/had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. 

In view of the the provision of Section-11, the complaint is also not maintainable. At the time of arguments  

Learned Counsel of the O.P. made a submission that where imparting of education is involved, the Consumer Forum has also no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute regarding compensation arising out of educational institute. 

We have come across a decision of the Apex Court which is decided in Bihar School Examination Board Vrs. Suresh Prasad Singh reported in 2009(SCC) 483. In this decision Apex Court decided that the educational institution is not a service provider and a student is not a consumer. So, relying upon the above decision we also can say that the instant complaint is also not maintainable. 

In view of the above findings and decision we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable U/S 11 of the C.P. Act 1986 as well as barred by law of limitation. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Reflect the operative  portion of this order in the main case bearing no. CC-68/2020. 

Thus, both the cases are disposed of.

Supply a copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.