Jharkhand

Purbi Singhbhum

CC/78/2009

Kumari Seema - Complainant(s)

Versus

Principal , Veta - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2009

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/78/2009
( Date of Filing : 26 Jun 2009 )
 
1. Kumari Seema
5B , Shyam Bachhan Path , (Neel Sarovar) , Uliyan , Kadma , Jamshedpur
Purbi Singhbhum
Jharkhand
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Principal , Veta
H.O. , Madley Road , T. Nagar , Chennai
Chennai
Chennai
2. Sukumar Sadasivam , Regional Manager , Amoha Education (P) Ltd.
1st Floor , AB-2 , Sector-1, Salt Lake City , Kolkata-64
Purbi Singhbhum
Jharkhand
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Ramanuj Narayan PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Mr. S.C . Mishra MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 22 Oct 2009
Final Order / Judgement

The complainant is present in person and file calender of the year 2006 . 

                This cas has been filed by M.S. Murty against Sr. Suptd. of Post Office , Speed post Concentration Center , Visakhapatnam with the allegation that his daughter has sent her application for appearing at Jharkhand Combined Examination in 2006 . She had deposited the envelop on 03.03.2006 and it could not reach till 07.03.2006 2006 Ranchi and  she has paid Rs. 50/- as postal charge and thus deficiency on the part of the Post Office, hence he has claimed Rs. Five Lacs as compensation .

                   On the point of limitaton as well as Jurisdiction of this Forum the complainant was repeatedly asked to address the forum as his  daughter has sent the application on 03.03.2006 the case should have been filed within two years as per Sec . 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, but this complainant has been filed on 06.04.2009 thus there has been delay of more than one year . 2ndly the application was sent from Visakhapatnam to Ranchi  and hence only Visakhapatnamor Ranchi District Consumer Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain this complainant . The complainant  tried to explain that the complainant and his daughter are residing at Jamshedpur within the jurisdiction of this Forum , hence the case should be entertained but the law does not permit it . The member have considered both the ponts and they are of the opinion that this case is barred by limitation as well as that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to enterain this complainant and this complainant is fit to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected under Sec . 12 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act.       

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Ramanuj Narayan]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Mr. S.C . Mishra]
MEMBER
 

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.