Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/460

AMITY UNIVERSITY (UP) - Complainant(s)

Versus

SERVE PRIYA PAUL - Opp.Party(s)

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                Date of Arguments: 07.09.16

          Date of Decision:    14.09.16

 

Appeal No. 460/11

In the matter of:

            Amity University

            Uttar Pradesh

Sector 125

Gautam Budh Nagar

NOIDA                                                                                               ....Appellant

           

  

                            

                                                Versus

 

 

Serve Priya Paul

FA-291

Mansarovar Garden

New Delhi-15                                                       .........Respondent                            

ORAM

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

 

•  

 

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

      

JUDGEMENT

 

      The present appeal is filed against order dated 04.05.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Resolution Forum, New Delhi in complaint No. 384/10.  The complaint was allowed and OP was directed to pay Rs. 55,600/- as refund of fee to the complainant, Rs. 25,000/-on account of compensation towards mental agony and harassment, Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Now the plea of OP/appellant is that it was never served in the District Forum, respondent filed an affidavit that appellant refused to receive the Dasti notice and on that basis it was proceeded ex-parte. Respondent was served with notice of the appeal by Regd. AD for 20.05.2013 but did not appear.  Again a notice was sent by Regd. AD for 12.2.14 which was not received back.  Hence service was presumed.

 

3. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No, 2168/15 titled as Prabhmeet Bawa vs. Registrar Amity University, NOIDA decided on 31.08.15.  It was observed that student is not a consumer. So petitioner withdrew the revision.

 

4. The counsel for the appellant also relied upon decision of High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No, 7247/12 titled as Srishti Gupta vs.Amity University.  That was case of the present appellant and it was held that since petitioner took admission and pursued the course of study in NOIDA, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Hence writ petition was dismissed.

 

5. Applying aforesaid law, appeal is accepted.  Impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.  However, complainant is given liberty to seek redressal of his grievance before civil court after taking benefit of section 14 of the limitation act as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Engineering Works vs.  ESG Industrial Institute 1995 (III) STC.

 

Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.