Haryana

Kurukshetra

147/2018

PArdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIMT Study Center - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                        Consumer Complaint No.147 of 2018.

                                        Date of instt.:13.07.2018. 

                                        Date of Decision:03.02.2020.

 

Pardeep Singh s/o Shri Dharam Pal, aged about 33 years, r/o H.No.1545, Aare Wali Gali, Didar Nagar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …….Complainant.                                               

   Versus

       

1. NIMT Study Centre of JRN Rajasthan Vidya Peeth University, Opp. Payal Nursing Home, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra, through its Authorized R.S. Dhanada.
2. Directorate of Distance Education, JRN Rajasthan Vidya Peeth University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan-313001, through its Director.

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.            

Shri Deepak Sethi, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

OP No.2 ex-parte.

 

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Pardeep Singh against NIMT and others, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had done the B. Tech course in Chemical Engineering from the OP No.2 University through distance education. That the OP No.1 has been allotted as study center of the complainant. He has passed the said course in the year 2011 vide Enrolment No.DE-II/08/178915. That the OPs have charged Rs.15,000/- per semester from him. There were six semester of him in the said course and in this way, the OPs have charged total Rs.90,000/-. Beside this, the OPs have also charged Rs.3000/- for per semester as examination charges, total Rs.18,000/- and this amount of Rs.1,08,000/- has been received from him by the OP No.1 on behalf of OP No.2 also at Kurukshetra. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has cancelled all the distance educations decree in its decision dated 03.11.2017 in SLP (Civil) No.19807-19808 of 2012 and directed the universities to refund the fee of the students. In view of this decision, he is legally entitled to refund the said amount of Rs.1,08,000/- plus 18% per annum interest till payment from the OPs. That he requested the OPs so many times to refund the said amount and also contacted on telephone No.+91-294-2491430 on 04.06.2018 and application was also filed in this regard, but all in vain and the OPs has not paid the said amount to him. The Ops alleged that they have given notice to him regarding refund the same amount, but he has not received the same. In this way, the OPs are deficient while rendering services to him. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi. It is stated that the institute named NIMT is not in working since June 2015 and even a new admissions were not made thereafter. The complainant is not entitled any kind of compensation/damages. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OP No.1 with special costs.

                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 before this Forum, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2019.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant had done the B.Tech course in Chemical Engineering from the OP No.2 University through distance education and OP No.1 has been allotted as study center to him. The complainant passed the said course in the year 2011 vide Enrolment No.DE-II/08/178915. The OPs have charged total Rs.90,000/- for six semester. Beside this, the OPs have also charged total Rs.18,000/- as examination charges per semester. In this way, the complainant paid total amount of Rs.1,08,000/- to the OP No.1 on behalf of OP No.2. He further argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has cancelled all the distance educations degree in its decision dated 03.11.2017 in SLP (Civil) No.19807-19808 of 2012 and directed the universities to refund the fee of the students and in view of said decision, he is legally entitled to refund the said amount of Rs.1,08,000/- plus 18% per annum interest till payment from the OPs. He further argued that the complainant requested the OPs so many times to refund the said amount, but all in vain and the OPs has not paid the said amount to him.

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has also reiterated all the averments mentioned in the reply. He argued that the institute named NIMT is not in working since June 2015 and even a new admissions were not made thereafter. He further argued that the complainant is not entitled any kind of compensation/damages and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with special costs.

8.             There is no dispute that the complainant has passed B.Tech Course from the OPs. In Para No.4 of the complaint, the complainant has specifically admitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has cancelled all the distance educations degree in its decision dated 03.11.2017 in SLP (Civil) No.19807-19808 of 2012 and directed the universities to refund the fee of the students. However, it is pertinent to mention here that when the matter has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, then as per Section 11 of CPC, this Forum cannot entertain the same. Under Section 11 C.P.C. it is provided as under:

          “S. 11. Res judicata: No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court”.

Explanations I to VIII:…….

 

        Section 12 C.P.C. provides as under:-

          “S.12. Bar to further suit:- Where a plaintiff is precluded by rules from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action, he shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any Court to which this Code applies”.

        Under Section 21-A, inserted in 1976-77 quoted in Appendix A it is provided that a decree cannot be challenged through another suit on the ground that the court which passed the disputed decree had no territorial (including pecuniary) jurisdiction. (See also synopsis 4)

        Under Section 47 (1) it is provided as under:-

          “Section 47(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representative and relating to the execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit”.

        Restitution on reversal of decree may be obtained only from the court which passed the decree as provided under Section 144(1) C.P.C. Suit for restitution is barred under Sub Section 2 thereof which is quoted below:

        144 (2) No suit shall be instituted for the purposes of obtaining any restitution or other relief which could be obtained by applicant under sub-section (1)

        Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. provides that if part of the claim or some relief flowing from the cause of action is not claimed in the suit, it cannot be claimed through another suit. Order 2, Rule 2 to 4 are quoted in Appendix A.

        Order 9, Rule 8 makes it obligatory upon the court to dismiss the suit if defendant appears and plaintiff does not appear. Thereafter it is provided under Order 9 Rule 9 (1) (first sentence) as follows:-

        “Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action”.

        In case of resistance to execution of decree for possession of immovable property or dispossession of wrong person therein applications are to be filed under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 which are to be decided under Rule 98 or 100. Such orders before 1976-77 amendment in C.P.C. (Act No. 104 of 1976 w.e.f. 1.2.1977) were subject to the result of the suit. However, through amendment of 1976-77 it was provided under Rule 101 that:

        “All questions arising between the parties on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit. Under Rule 103 such adjudication is given the status of decree subject to appeal”.

        Under Rule 104 it is provided that if any suit was pending on commencement of the proceedings under Rule 101 or Rule 103 then orders passed under the said rules shall be subject to the result of the suit.

9.             Keeping in view the above Sections and the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as without going into the merits of the present case, we are of the considered view that the matter in question has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. It is pertinent to mention here that if the complainant has any grievance regarding the matter in question, then he can approach before the competent court of law, as per provisions of law. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:03.02.2020.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.