DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> <br /> CC.No. 54 of 03.02.2010<br /> Decided on 25.02.2010<br /> <br /> Akanksha Nagpal aged about 19 years D/o Satpal Nagpal, resident of H.No.16808-A, Gali No.5/1, Basant Vihar, Bathinda.<br /> ........Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab Agriculture University, B.Tech. Agriculture Branch, Ludhiana, through its Registrar.<br /> 2. The Dean, College of Agricultural Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.<br /> ........Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the Complainant : Sh.Sham Lal Goyal, counsel for the complainant.<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the complainant's case is that she has cleared the competition test of CET-2009 by Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. Thereafter, she directed appeared in 2nd counseling conducted by opposite party No.2 and she has been alloted a seat in the college of opposite party No.2. The complainant has deposited fee of Rs.28,045/- on 21.08.2009. Due to some unavoidable reasons, the complainant has relinquish her seat and requested many times to the opposite parties to refund the abovesaid fee but the opposite parties did not listen her requests and not refund her fee. Therefore, the complainant has pleaded that the opposite parties be directed to pay her fee alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. <br /> 2. Heard. Both the parties are carrying on their education activities at Ludhiana. They are nor residing or carrying education activities at Bathinda. The complainant has alleged in the complaint, cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, Bathinda because security amount was refunded to her. In support to averments, she had placed on record, letter from The Dean, college of Agriculture Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana to the complainant whereby, she was advised to collect her security fund from this office on any working day by 21.12.2009. There is no other documents on the record of the fund of security amount. The abovesaid documents shows that the security amount was to be collected by the complainant from Ludhiana office of opposite party No.1. Therefore, averments by complainant in complaint that the security amount was refunded at Bathinda is untrue. Now, it has to be whether receipt of abovesaid letter dated 12.11.2009, received at Bathinda for the refund of fund confers any jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, Bathinda? In our view, it does not cause, the security amount was to be collected by the complainant at Ludhiana office of opposite party No.1. Therefore, merely receipt of letter dated 12.11.2009 for the refund of security fund at Bathinda does not confer any jurisdiction on the Distirct Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (In short District Forum) to entertain and try this complaint. Hence, the complaint is rejected and is ordered to be returned to the complainant for being presented before the Forum/Court of competent jurisdiction since this complaint is not maintainable, hence merits of this case are not being touched.<br /> 3. The copy of this order be sent to the party concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI)<br /> 25.02.2010 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER