This appeal is directed against the order of ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri dated 11/7/2018 in reference to the CC No. 66 of 2017. The appellant of the case is Bagdorga  para medical institute who lodged the appeal against  Somnath Chakrabarti and others who are called respondents in this appeal. The fact of the case in nut shell is that the respondent one Somnath Chakrabarty lodged a consumer complaint before the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri contended that being attracted with an advertisement in local daily newspaper in the year of 2016, he searched the website of the appellant, Bagdogra Para Medical  institute contacted with the appellant institute and came to know that a diploma course was going on under Bundelkhand University through appellant and he was assured that after completion of diploma course, his job will be secured as the proforma respondent Anandalok Hospital and Neuro Science Centre, Siliguri were conducting the course under collaboration. The complainant was agreed to get admission in the said course for the academic session 2016-2018 in distant correspondence method and handed over rupees 45000 through cheque. Thereafter time to time he had to pay total 86000 through cash and cheque. At the time of admission, he was assured that study materials, registration certificate, admit card etc., was to be handed over to him time to time but no such material was given to him by the appellant institution. At last a server copy of statement of marks for the first year was handed over to him by the appellant while the respondent no. 1 never sitted for any examination for the said course and he at last came to know that he was defrauded by the appellant after a deep rooted conspiracy hatched against him by the appellant and other respondents. So he lodged the consumer complainant claiming compensation etc. The appellant as Op no. 1 of that case had contested the case by filing written version and contended that as a franchise of “Institute of Health and Science, Calcutta” he used to run the para medical course like diploma of Pharma at his institution and the complainant at his own instance got admitted in this institution where total course fee settled at rupees 93,000 out of which the complainant/respondent no. 1 has paid rupees 86,000 and he had appeared for his part 1 examination in August, 2016. Therefore he did not go through the remaining part of the course and for that reason,  rupees 22,000 was refunded to him and now the complainant/respondent no.  1 after manufacturing a false case has tired to get refund the entire money he has paid with ulterior motive.

The proforma OP Bundelkhand University has contested the case by submitting the written version and contended that Somnath Chakrabarty that is the respondent no. 1 never got admission under the Bundelkhan University as a student and the certificate of diploma which was handed over to him by the appellant was false and manufactured and the University had no liability in this score.

The respondent Anandalok Hospital and Neuro Science Centre has contested the case by filing WV separately and stated that this institution had no connection with the appellant institution in respect of any distant education course  like diploma in Pharma and others.

Ld. Forum on the basis of documents furnishes before them has adjudicated the dispute and passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum had got no territorial jurisdiction  to settle the dispute and without recording any evidence Ld. Forum has adjudicated the case which is unauthorized and illegal and as such the appeal should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

The respondent no. 2 and 4 that is director of Anandalok Hospital and Neuro Science Centre, Siliguri and the register Bundelkhand open University  has contested the appeal where the other respondents that is respondent no. 1 and other has not contested the appeal in spite of receiving the notice of appeal  in due course. Therefore the appeal was heard in presence of the appellant side as well as in presence of respondent no. 2 and 4 thorough their agents and advocates.

D e c i s i o n  w i t h  R e a s o n s

Admitted position is that the respondent no. 1 Somnath Chakrabarty had enrolled his name as a student of Diploma of Pharma in the institution of appellant by paying fees total rupees 86,000. The office of appellant situates at Bagdogra within the District of Darjeeling. The office of respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 are situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri. The establishment of respondent no. 2 that is Anandalok Hospital and Neuro Science Centre and Punjab National Bank that is respondent no. 6 are situated within the jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri, DCDRF. At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate of the appellant mentioned that the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the consumer complainant as because the cause of action has arisen within the District of Darjeeling because the complainant/respondent no. 1 has enrolled his name as a student in the institution of appellant which is situated within the jurisdiction of Darjeeling and not Jalpaiguri. He further submits that respondent no. 1 by submitting written version has categorically stated that respondent no. 2 had no connection with the appellant institution in respect of any collaboration of studies of Diploma of Pharma. He further pointed out that Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri in their judgment categorically mentioned that there was no nexus between OP no. 1 and OP no. 2 and as such no right cause was there to implead OP no. 2 that is Anandalok Hospital and Neuro Science Centre in connection with this case. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument further pointed out that Bundelkhand University also had no connection with the appellant Somnath Chakrabarty as the appellant categorically mentioned in his written version that his institution was affiliated not with Bundelkhand University rather it  is  attached with institute of health science, Calcutta who conducted the course of Diploma of Pharma through Bundelkhand University and his institution was not affiliated to university directly. He further mentioned that in this case, the core mistake was there on the part of LD. DCDRF, while the subject matter was decided by the Ld. Forum not in appropriate manner or following the established procedure enunciated in section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and according to him the judgment should be set aside.

The respondent no. 2 and 4 at the time of hearing of argument mentioned before this Commission that their institution whom they  are representing, not connected in any way with the appellant institution and due to misconception on the part of the respondent Somnath Chakrabarty they were impleaded in the Consumer case while they had no nexus with appellant institution.

After hearing the valuable arguments of all the Ld. Advocates concerned with this appeal case, this Commission find that regarding cause of action and relating to territorial jurisdiction, the Ld. Forum had no gross mistake or error in their judgment as because the respondent no. 1 in his consumer complaint mentioned that the appellant institution at the time of admission has represented that respondent no. 2 that is Anandalok Hospital and Neuro Science Centre was conducting the course with collaboration with the appellant institution and the office of the said neuro science is situated within the jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri, D.C.D.R.F. Rather the cheques which was issued by the respondent Somnath Chakrabarty was encashed through the Punjab National bank of Jalpaiguri Branch. Collection of fees of that perspective, we can hold that Ld. D.C.D.R.F., got the ample territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes.

Here in this case, the Forum has adopted the method to settle the dispute as per provisions of summary trial and for that reason, evidences  was not recorded or called from either side of this case. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument mentioned that not recording the evidence or not providing opportunity for adducing evidence to the parties of this case is a violation of natural justice which is strictly prohibited under the provisions of section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. He has referred  a judicial decision reported in ii(220) CPJ 369 where it was decided that “disposing of the complaint simply on pleadings without directing the parties to file evidence by way of affidavits, is illegal on the face of it.

                The plain  reading of section 13 postulates that to settle the Consumer dispute. The District Forum should proceed to have evidences brought to its notice by both parties. So, evidence is vital one to adjudicate any consumer dispute. Now, what is called evidence in the direct  sense, evidence means the testimony whether oral, documentary or real which may be legally received in order to prove or disprove some fact in dispute. In another sense, evidence is that which may be placed before the adjudicating authority in order that it may decide the issues of fact. Mere pleading certainly is not a piece of evidence and any adjudicating authority if settle any consumer dispute only on the basis of pleadings of both sides, there will be inference that such adjudication is not appropriate or proper in the eye of law. Here in this case, the Ld. Forum in his judgment categorically mentioned that in this case neither the complainant nor the Opposite Parties filed any affidavit in chief nor they adduced any oral evidence and for that reason they adjudicated the dispute on the basis of petition of complaint supported by affidavit and the written version annexed the affidavit along with documents. So to some extent we cannot hold that the Ld. Forum has committed a gross mistake for not insisting the parties for adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. On the other hand, the Consumer Protection Act nowhere mentions that the Forum may decide any matter without taking any evidences. So, the Ld. Forum had the opportunity to insist the parties to that case to furnish the affidavit in chief in support of their case and thereafter decide the issues. Here in this case, neither the complainant nor the respondents filed any evidence by way of affidavit which is contrary to the provisions of Section 13 of the CP, Act, 1986. So in our view, it is better on the part of the Ld. Forum to settle the dispute afresh after giving opportunity of both sides to adduce evidences by affidavit and thereafter the Forum should dispose of the matter in consultation with the evidences along with the documents and for that reason this Commission thinks it fit to sent back the case on remand before the Ld. Forum to adjudicate the dispute afresh after recording evidences of both sides and pass a final order, as per provision of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection  Act,, 1986. In this case, various matters are related with this adjudication like place of cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, etc. and to settle the dispute, recording of proper evidence is the ultimatum. Therefore, the Commission finds necessity to interfere with the order of Ld. Forum. Thus, the appeal succeeds.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d ,

That the appeal be and same is allowed on contest without any cost. The impugned final order of Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri dated 11/7/2018 in CC 66 of 2017 is hereby set aside. The Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri, is hereby requested to record evidence of both sides by way of affidavit, questionnaire etc and to hear the argument and adjudicate the dispute on the basis of evidence, documents and arguments within a short span of time. Let the order be communicated the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri and copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.