Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1149/2017

Taxila Business School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raghuveer Saraswat S/o Dwarka Prasad Saraswat - Opp.Party(s)

Kamal Chamria

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1149 /2017

 

Taxila Business School Opp.House No. 91/115, Sector 9 Mandir Marg, Near Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Raghuveer Saraswat s/o Dwarka Prasad Saraswat r/o Gali No. 3, Old Karni Mata Temple, Tilak Nagar, Sagar Road, Bikaner.

 

Date of Order 12.4.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Kamal Chamaria counsel for the appellant

Mr. G.S.Chauhan counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd dated 17.8.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the case is covered by the judgment passed in Appeal No.1148/2017 Taxila Business School Vs. Jainul Aabedeen hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the appellant is Taxila Business School whereas before the Forum below Kishore Sharma was the party hence, the appeal is not maintainable and further more the cause of action was continuous one and claim is not time barred and sufficient reason has been shown for delay and no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that before the Forum below the respondent has moved an application u/s 24 A of the

3

C.P.Act meaning thereby the respondent wants condonation of delay. Hence, it cannot be said that the complaint was not time barred. The reasons which have been stated in the application were that appellant institution assured him that they are trying to have the recognition and thereafter he engaged in his personal and social problems. Both these reasons cannot be said to be sufficient to condone the delay of about two years hence, the case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 1148/2017.

 

The other contention of the respondent is that appeal is not maintainable on behalf of Taxila Business School. This is true that before the Forum below Kishore Sharma c/o Taxila Business School is the party. Here in the present case the title is reverse one but this is only a technical mistake and could be ignored.

 

In view of above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 17.8.2017 is set aside.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm