DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Arushi Goel d/o Sh. S.K. Goel, r/o Kothi No.1004, Sector 24, Chandigarh.

                                                        ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]        National Law Institute through its Registrar, Kerwa Dam Road, Bhopal – 462044.

[2]    The Vice Chancellor, National Law Institute University, Kerwa Dam Road, Bhopal – 462044.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                 PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:     Sh. Dinesh Goyal, Adv for Complainant.

Sh. Arun Kundal, Adv. for OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.             Factually speaking, the complainant had been granted admission in Integrated B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Course in National Law Institute run by the OPs. For the said admission, she had appeared and qualified Common Law Admission Test (CLAT-2009) Examination. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.74,600/- on 2/7/2009 at the time of admission with the OPs.

                Subsequently, the Complainant was also successful in the entrance examination held by National Law School, Delhi. Accordingly, she informed the OPs that she would be unable to join their Institute and hence, requested for refund of her entire fee. The OPs refunded only Rs.15,000/- deposited towards caution money, library deposit and hostel fee. The Complainant, thus, served a legal notice upon the OPs to refund the entire amount.

                As the OPs have not complied with her request, Complainant has filed the instant complaint, claiming the balance amount, along with compensation and costs of litigation.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3.             OPs in their joint reply have taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable, as the Complainant had been informed at the time of submission of application form that the fee once deposited will not be refunded.  The relevant portion of the Information Brochure reads as under:-

“Fee once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances. The university has the power to revise the fee structure from time to time.”

                The OPs have alleged that the Complainant herself voluntarily opted not to join the Institute for the reasons best known to her. Further, she has never disclosed to the OPs that she had got admission in the National Law School, Delhi. 

                On merits, the OPs have admitted the factum of grating admission to the Complainant, as well as receipt of fee from her. The Complainant had voluntarily opted not to join the Institute, hence, she was not entitled for any refund. OPs have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.             Before issuing notice, the point of jurisdiction was raised by the Bench and in reply to which, the complainant placed reliance on the case of Manmohan Lal Sarin Vs M/s Emirates, New Delhi, reported as (2010) 1 RCR (Civil) 170 in support of her contention that this Forum had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. This judgment related to purchase of air ticket and payment had been made at Chandigarh through credit card, by which jurisdiction was established. In the instant matter, the Law Institute of OPs is situated at Bhopal. The complainant has applied for refund from Hoshiarpur (Annexure A-2). The Complainant has attached receipt of National Law Institute University, Bhopal, issued by OPs for Rs.64,600/-.  There is no proof to show that the payment of fee was made by the complainant from Chandigarh.

                Also, there is no record to show that the refund was even received at Chandigarh. The Cheque for refund has been sent to her address at Hoshiarpur.

                The OPs do not have either their office or even a Branch Office in Chandigarh to substantiate the factum of jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2009 has held as under:-

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17 — Jurisdiction — Territorial — Fire broke out in godown at Ambala — Insurance policy taken at Ambala — Compensation claim made at Ambala — Contention regarding applicability of Amendment Act, 2003 not acceptable — ‘branch office’ in amended section means, branch office where cause of action arose — No part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh — Consumer Commission, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to adjudicate.”

7.             The complainant has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the cases of Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, reported as III, (2009) CPJ 33 (NC), M.V.J. College of Engineering Vs. Tukaram Rao reported as  IV (2008) CPJ 247 (NC) and G.G.S. Indraprastha University Vs. Vaibhav reported as IV (2009) CPJ 234 (NC) wherein the refund of fee was allowed by the Court as the student had not attended the course for a single day. Even though we agree and appreciate the grievance of the complainant and feel that the amount should have been refunded to her by the OPs, however, this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to pass orders in the case in hand as no cause of action in the dispute has arisen in Chandigarh.

8.             At this stage, reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Textile Corporation Limited and others Vs. Haribox Swalram and others reported as (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 786 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“Cause of action as understood in civil proceedings means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. It is the bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant.

Each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.”

9.             The Hon’ble Apex Court has further in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others reported as (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 711 held that: -

“A. Constitution of India-Art. 226(2) – Territorial jurisdiction – ‘Territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises’ – To be decided on facts pleaded in the petition disregarding truth or otherwise thereof – Facts must form integral part of the cause of action………. Since averments in the petition did not disclose that even a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of the petitioner – Practice of the High Court of entertaining petitions merely because petitioner resides within its territorial jurisdiction even though no cause of action arose within its jurisdiction strongly deprecated – CPC, 1908, S.20 – Words and phrases..”

10.            OPs have retained the amount paid by the complainant, which should actually be refunded to her after deduction of reasonable administrative charges only. But, as has been mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the above cited authorities, we express our inability to adjudicate upon the matter and pass orders, due to lack of jurisdiction, on the issue.

11.            Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum of competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance .

12.            Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

1^st December 2011.                                                                    

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)