Delhi

New Delhi

CC/747/2015

Ajai Kumar Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary, Dept. Of Higher Education - Opp.Party(s)

07 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.747/2015                                Dated:

In the matter of:

                A.K. Srivastava,

              185, Sec.3,

             R.K.Puram, New Delhi.                    

                                                      ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Secretary,

Department of Higher Education,

Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

 

2. Secretary,

University Grants Commission,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.

 

3. Secretary,

All India Council for Technical Education,

       7^th Floor, Chanderlok Building

Janpath, New Delhi-110001.

 

4. Director,

Indian Institute of Management,

Lucknow, Prabandh Nagar,

IIM Road, Lucknow-226013(UP).

                                                                                                                                                     …...Opposite Parties

​

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The gist of the complaint is that the complainant paid a fee for a sum of Rs.2,13,000/- for admission with OP-4 for Academic Session 2014-15.   It is alleged that OP-4 is not refunding the fee paid to the Institute at the time of the admission of his son who had left IIML,  as he got admission in better Institute of his choice.  It is alleged that the University of Delhi declared his result of admission of MBA(full time) course very late and as such his son took an admission in the said course on 28.6.2014 i.e. after the date when he had already took admission with OP-4 i.e on 16.6.2014.  Keeping in view, various factors such as the residence of  complainant, high reputation of FMS University of Delhi his son withdraw his admission from IIML vide application dated 30.6.2014 and took admission in FMS Delhi.  It is submitted that despite repeated requests and reminders OP-4 failed to refund the fee deposited with it.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged a complaint regarding the refund with OP-1 to 3 but all in vain, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP-4.  It denied any deficiency in services on its part.  In its preliminary objection OP-4 has strongly challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence, needs to be decided first. 

3.     It has been pleaded by OP that neither the cause of action accrued at New Delhi nor OP-4 resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Moreover, this Forum has not given any permission to the complainant to file his complaint with this Forum.  The OP-1, 2 & 3 were merely added to engineer the jurisdiction at New Delhi who otherwise have no direct bearing with the dispute and the principal relief of refund of fees cannot be granted by them. 

4.     We are in agreement with the contention of the counsel for OP-4.  Perusal of the file shows that the son had taken the admission at IIM, Lucknow, the fees was paid to IIM, Lucknow, the application for the withdrawal of admission and refund of fees was given to the Director, IIM, Lucknow, hence, neither the OP-4 resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor the cause of action arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  .     

      On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

5.        So far as the arguments that the  Office of the OP-3 situated Janpath, New Delhi for territorial purposes is concerned, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in FA No.347/15 decided on 29.12.2015 titles as Spice Jet Ltd. Vs. Ranju Aery upheld by Hon’ble National Commission on 07.02.2017 in R.P. No.1396/16, the SLP filed against this order was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The relevant portion of Hon’ble State Commission judgement in which head quarter was at Gurgaon is as under:

“In case, arguments of Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it would amount to clogging down the District Forum at Gurgaon, as complainants throughout the country , will approach there, for filing their complaints and further it will be very costly for anybody, to anybody, to travel to Gurgaon and defend his/her case.  Such a stipulation was not contemplated, under the Provision of the CPA 1986”

6.         Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of judgments cited above and the legal position discussed above. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the competent District Forum in accordance with Law.  A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 07/12/2018.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                  PRESIDENT

 

                           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                     (H M VYAS)

                                          MEMBER                                                      MEMBER