Delhi

East Delhi

CC/254/2013

AKSHAT BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PICASSO DIGITAL - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.254/2013   

 

 

AKSHAT BANSAL

R/O A-20, EAST BALDEV PARK

DELHI - 110051

 

 

 ….Complainant

Versus

 

 

PICASSO DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.

OFF –C-56/4, SECTOR-62,

NOIDA - 201309

 

 

 

 

……OP1

 

EMPATHY DIGITAL MEDICA PVT. LTD.

(SANJAY CHAUBEY)

DIRECTOR OF PICASSO AND EMPATHY,

TRIUMFO TECHNO (GPL) A-65

SECTOR – 83, NOIDA PHASE - 1

 

 

 

 

……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution

:

25.03.2013

Judgment Reserved on

:

07.06.2023

Judgment Passed on

:

07.06.2023

 

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra

(President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal

(Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar

(Member)

 

 

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

By this order, the commission shall dispose of the present complaint with respect to the deficiency in services on the part of OP in not providing a course certificate as per their brochure and misrepresenting the complainant which caused him not only harassment and mental agony but also loss of his precious time.

  1. Succinctly, the facts of the case unfolded from the complaint are that the complainant has taken admission to OP’s college, which as per OP’s representation and brochure was affiliated and recognized with Contennial College Toronto, Canada.  The complainant has taken a loan from OP3, The Punjab National Bank, for the said course which was having tie-up with OP1 and OP2 but after the completion of the course, the certificate given to him does not demonstrate any detail indicating that the said institute is affiliated with the Contennial College Toronto and is not trustworthy. Moreover, the course was also not completed within time as promised to him. The complainant submits that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP1 and OP2.
  2. OP1 and OP2 failed to file their reply and their opportunity to file a reply was closed vide order dated 18.12.2013. OP3 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 10.02.2014. OP1 and OP2 failed to file their evidence and an ex-parte judgment dated 03.11.2015 was passed by this Commission by which order,  the OP1 and OP2  were directed to refund Rs. 2,30,000/- with interest @ 12% interest p.a., i.e. the total amount deposited by the complainant to the OP, and an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and mental agony, suffered by the complainant including the litigation cost. It was also directed that the above-stated amount be paid to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the order else an interest of 9% p.a. would be paid by the OPs to the complainant on the entire amount.
  3. OPs preferred an appeal bearing number F151/16, before Hon'ble State Commission, against the said order, and vide order dated 27.03.2019, the said impugned order was set aside by Hon'ble State Commission and the matter was remanded back to the District Forum to decide the same on merit after taking WS and evidence, subject to payment of Rs.20,000 with cost.
  4. The OP has filed a written statement taking various objections preliminary objection including the objection w.r.t. territorial jurisdiction of this commission.
  5. Both parties have filed their respective evidence supported by documents, and written arguments. 
  6. Heard and perused the record.
  7. Before adverting to the merit of the case, as to whether there is any deficiency with respect to the services promised to be given by the OP to the complainant, the issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the complaint is to be decided which is germane to the proceedings as without jurisdiction the decree passed would be a nullity.
  8. The documents on record show that initially the complainant has made three parties, showing, OP1 at C 56 /4, sector, 62 Noida and OP2, the director of OP1 i.e. OP2 at A-65, sector 83 Noida phase 1 and OP3, the Punjab National Bank, at F-90, Preet Vihar Vikas Marg, Delhi. Only OP3 was having its office within the territorial limit of this Commission. The complaint was admitted and a notice was issued to the OPs and vide order dated 11.04.2013, on the objection raised by OP3,  it was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 10.02.2014.
  9. The perusal of the record shows that as per CP Act, 1986, (applicable to the present case), this commission has no territorial jurisdiction with respect to the OP1 and OP2 as the place of residence/ work for gain of both the OPs is at Noida, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The documents on record also show that the complainant completed his study at Noida Centre only. Therefore, neither the cause of action has been stated to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission, nor any of the OP party resides/works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission.
  10. The Hon'ble NCDRC in a recent judgement 03.03.2023 in The Concerned Nurse Vs. Lalan Prasad Sharma & Dr. Jitender, C.M.O in Revision Petition No. 3439 of 2018 has held ‘for resumption of jurisdiction by a Court or a Tribunal existence of jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent’ while referring to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana (2013) 10 SCC 136 wherein it was held that:
  11.  
  12. Accordingly, this commission is of the opinion that it does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is returned to the complainant to be filed before the court of competent jurisdiction.        
  13. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per the rules, thereafter file be consigned to the record room.      

Pronounced on 07.06.2023    

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.