Date of filing :  17-04-2010

                                                                 Date of order : 30-08-2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                C.C. 94/2010

                         Dated this, the 30^th    day of August 2010

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                       : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI                             : MEMBER

B.M. Usman,

S/o.Moideen Kunhi Mukri,

Mukri House, Kaikamba,                             } Complainant

Uppala Po. 671322,

Kasaragod Taluk

(Adv.M. Abdul Khader, Kasaragod)

Padmanabha.B,

The Principal,

Adarsh College, Lady Hill,

Mangalore, 575003,                                              } Opposite party

Dakshina Kannada District.

(Adv. M. Mahesh, Kasaragod)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT.

            Complaint is one praying for an order for the refund of `8,000/- that he remitted to opposite party for obtaining admission for BBM Degree course to his son Mohammed Fayiz. According to complainant he could not submit the documents on the cut off date given by opposite party to secure admission.  Hence he was neither given the admission nor refunded    the remitted amount `8,000/-.  Hence the complaint.

2.            Opposite party filed version and raised objection  regarding the maintainability of the case before the Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction.  Therefore both sides heard on the issue regarding the maintainability.

3.            According to learned counsel for complainant Sri. Abdul Khader complainant is residing within the territorial limits of this Forum and Consumer Protection Act being a social oriented beneficial legislation its limits should have extended to help the consumers and therefore a consumer should  be allowed to present his  case within the territorial limits of the Forum where the complainant resides or carries on business.

4.            According to learned counsel for opposite party, the opposite party situates at Mangalore and they have no franchisees or branches within the territorial limits of this Forum.  Moreover, no cause of action either wholly or in part arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

5.            Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act deals with the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.  As per that a complaint shall be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party or opposite parties actually and voluntarily resides or carries  on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or the cause of action wholly or in part arises.

6.         On an appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case we accept the contention of opposite party and therefore hold that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum  for want of territorial jurisdiction.

            Hence the complaint is returned to the complainant.  If the complainant chooses to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction for the relief claimed in this complaint he can do so according to law and in such case he can claim the benefit of Sec 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting these proceedings while computing the period   of limitation for such proceedings.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/