This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 01-06-12 in the presence of Consumer Care Centre, advocate for complainants and of Sri K.V.K.Suresh, advocate for 1^st opposite party, Sri.D.Dhana Raju Advocate for 2^nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act praying to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,41,150/- (comprising of Rs.3,41,000/- claim amount; Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony and Rs.130/- towards court fee), for subsequent interest @12% p.a. on the claim amount from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment and for costs.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows

1^st Complainant studied upto 10^th Class and completed Medical Lab Technician Course privately and was unfit to get admission in B.D.S. and he has not even attempted EMCET as he has not completed the required qualification of Bi.P.C. – Intermediate and not well versed with admission procedures of B.D.S. The representative of 1^st opposite party lured 1^st Complainant that they admit in B.D.S. ( Bachelor of Dental Science) at 1^st opposite party college on payment of Rs.7,00,000/- as donation excluding fee and other expenses.  Believing the representation of 1^st opposite party, complainants approached 1^st opposite party who agreed to give him admission in B.D.S. Course from 2010 batch even though not qualified.  Complainant paid Rs.23,500/- , Rs.27,500/- , Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- under different D.Ds. dated 03-09-10 to 1^st opposite party who encashed the same.  1^st opposite party also collected Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash and has not given any receipt.  1^st opposite party also collected three cheques  each for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 27-07-2011 being agreed amount by way of advance cheques which was drawn on Andhra Bank, Kothapet, Guntur. 1^st opposite party has not issued any receipts for the above amounts and orally directed the 1^st complainant to join in the course.    When 1^st complainant came to the college and tried to enter into the classes 1^st opposite party refused him to admit stating that has not got admission card and not fulfilled the required procedure and necked him out as against the earlier understanding.  1^st opposite party has not issued any admit card to 1^st complainant and allowed him orally to sit in classes for a week days and sent him out tactfully.  The 1^st opposite party has not get the approval of 2^nd opposite party as per the rules in course.  The 1^st opposite party mischievously collected the amounts and necked him out from the college without giving any admission as agreed.  Opposite parties spoiled the bright career by promising and caused loss to his education career and damaged his life.  When the complainant gave a notice dated 17-06-11, the 1^st opposite party has given a wage reply demanding him to pay balance amount.  Opposite Party has not followed the admission rules and violated the procedure.  There is no response from 2^nd opposite party and they are liable to pay compensation as complainants suffered a lot of mental agony.  Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

3.     1^st complainant filed counter.  The brief averments of the counter are as follows.

        The material allegations made in complaint are not true, valid and binding on this opposite party.  Complainants are put to strict proof of all allegations which are not specifically admitted to be true.  The 1^st opposite party is represented by its president but not by principal as alleged in the complaint and the Principal is only an employee of 1^st opposite party which is a private un-aided.  The 1^st complainant submitted an application to 1^st opposite party for admission into 1^st year B.D.S. Course during 2010-2011 under ‘C’ category management quota and the 1^st complainant was admitted to the 1^st year B.D.S course under ‘C’ category during 2010-2011 after fulfilling the prerequisites.  Hence his admission was approved by 2^nd opposite party.  It is true that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.27,500/- by way of D.D. dated 03-09-11, Rs.15,000/- admission fee, Rs.2,000/- towards library fee, Rs.5,000/- towards laboratory fee, Rs.5,000/- towards caution fee (refundable) and Rs.5,000/- application fee , Rs.50,000/- by way of D.D. dated 03-09-10 towards tuition fee as per the norms and Rs.40,000/- through D.D. dated 03-09-10 towards hostel fee, but it is not correct to say that complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash to this opposite party as alleged.  So the question of passing receipt for the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- does not arise.  This opposite party collected 3 post dated cheques dated 27-07-11 for Rs.1,50,000/- each from the complainants towards tuition fee for the future academic year.   As per University regulations this opposite party can collect RS.2,50,000/- per year under management quota under ‘C’ category for the approved candidates.  The 1^st complainant was admitted in 1^st year B.D.S. on 06-09-10 and was attending to classes at his will irregularly and also joined in the boys hostel of 1^st opposite party college and stayed in the hostel from 06-09-10 to 08-02-11.  He signed in the movement register of boys hostel. On 20-11-10 the 1^st complainant has appeared for Anatomy examination conducted by 1^st opposite party and secured 26 marks out of 70 and while attending the said examination he signed in the student’s attendance paper at Sl.No.69.  On 20-11-10 the 1^st complainant submitted application to the hostel warden to permit him to vacate the hostel wherein his father 2^nd complainant also signed.  The warden of boys hostel endorsed the said application that the 2^nd complainant took away the 1^st complainant from hostel by vacating it on 08-02-11 at 4.45pm.  The 1^st complainant left the hostel and college voluntarily from 08-02-11.  Consequently the 1^st opposite party sustained a loss of Rs.10,00,000/-.  The complainant sent the notice dated 12-07-11 with false and untenable allegations for which this opposite party gave reply dated 18-11-11 with correct facts.  The complainant is bad in Law as it was not filed against proper party.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount claimed by complainant and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant.  The complainants are liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to this opposite party for the vexatious complainant filed by them. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

4.      The 2^nd opposite party filed version and the averments in brief are as follows : 

The allegations made in the complaint are not true and correct.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable either at Law or on facts.  The complainants are put to strict proof of all allegations made in the complaint.    This opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation or return fee amounts to the complainants.  2^nd opposite party is no way concerned with the fee structure in filling the “C” category seats.  The Principal of 1^st opposite party submitted list of candidate applied for admission into B.D.S. course under “C” category seats for the year 2010-2011.    The name of 1^st complainant was shown as a candidate applied for admission into B.D.S. course at Sl.No.10 in that list.  2^nd opposite party verified the said list and approved the admissions as per rules.  The name of 1^st complainant was shown at Sl.No.27 in the list approved by 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st complainant is eligible to get admission into B.D.S. course.  The complainants 1&2 concealed this fact and filed this false complaint against this opposite party to gain unlawful benefits.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

5.     2^nd Complainant and opposite parties 1&2 filed their respective affidavits in support of their versions.  Reiterating the same.

6.     On behalf of complainants Exs.A-1 to A-18 are marked.  On behalf of 1^st opposite party Exs.B-1 to B-16 are marked and Ex.B-17 is marked on behalf of 2^nd opposite party.

7.      Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1.  Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

    Complaint?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

     parties 1&2?

3.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

8.      POINT NO.1:  The case of the complainant is that the 1^st complainant studied upto 10^th class and completed Medical Lab Technician post privately and unfit to get admission in B.D.S. Course and that he has not even attempted EMCET and he has not completed the required qualification of Bi.P.C. Intermediate.  The representative of 1^st opposite party lured the 1^st complainant and got admission into B.D.S. at 1^st opposite party college on payment of Rs.7,00,000/- as donation including fee and other expenses and when 1^st complainant came to 1^st opposite party college they refused to admit him and sent him away after a week tactfully, that 1^st opposite party has not get the approval of 2^nd opposite party and 1^st opposite party collected amount mischievously from the 1^st complainant without giving any admission and caused loss to his educational career and damaged life and that thereby committed deficiency of service.

9.      The case of 1^st opposite party is that they have given admission to the 1^st complainant in B.D.S. Course under “C” category management quota and got the approval of 2^nd opposite party, that 1^st complainant attended the classes at his will irregularly and also joined in the boys hostel of the 1^st opposite party and stayed there from 06-09-10 to 08-02-11 and also appeared for Anatomy Examination conducted by 1^st opposite party 20-01-11 and secured 26 marks out of 70 and voluntarily vacated the hostel and discontinued the B.D.S. Course and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

10.   The case of 2^nd opposite party is that they have approved the list of management quota sent by 1^st opposite party and the name of 1^st complainant was shown at Sl.No.27 in the approved list and that there is no deficiency of service on their part.

11.   Before going to the merits of the case it has to be considered as to whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.

12.   The 1^st opposite party college is situated at Srikakulam and the 2^nd opposite party University is situated at Vijayawada.  The complainant mentioned in the complaint that the representatives of 1^st opposite party lured 1^st complainant that they admit him in B.D.S course at 1^st opposite party college on payment of Rs.7,00,000/- as donation excluding fee and other expenses.  When this Forum has taken objection on the point of territorial jurisdiction the complainants on 24-10-11 represented that the cause of action was arose at Guntur when the agent of 1^st opposite party approached at Guntur and lured him and promised to provide seat in B.D.S. even though he was not qualified. As such the complainant sent Demand Drafts along with application and the remaining cheques were also sent from Guntur and almost all transaction took place at Guntur and as 1^st opposite party made paper publication at Guntur.  On the above said representation made by complainants this Forum passed Order on 30-11-11 as follows:

        “Heard the complainant.  Perused the complaint and written endorsements.  The registry took an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as opposite parties are residing at Srikakulam and Vijayawada.  In para 3 of the complaint the complainants mentioned that the representatives of 1^st opposite party lured the complainants and promised to admit the 1^st complainant on payment of Rs.7,00,000/- as donation excluding fees and other expenses.  In his written endorsement dated 24-10-11 the complainant mentioned that the cause of action has arisen at Guntur and the agent of 1^st opposite party approached him at Guntur and lured him and promised to provide receipt in B.D.S. and almost all transaction took place at Guntur and as the 1^st opposite party made publication in Guntur. 

          The truth or otherwise of the above contention need not be gone into at this stage.  The endorsement dated 24-10-11 made by the complainant leads us to arrive at a conclusion prima facie that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction.  The office is therefore directed to number the complainant if otherwise in order.”

 13.   Even though it was represented by the complainants that the cause of action arose at Guntur they have not mentioned the same either in their complaint or in their affidavit.  Further the complaint does not disclose the names of the representatives of the opposite party or where they have represented and lured them.  The complainants failed to establish the cause of action that took place at Guntur as represented by them.  Even though they have mentioned in the complaint that they have drawn demand drafts in favour of 1^st opposite party on Andhra Bank, Kothapet, Guntur, through the S.B. Account of the 2^nd complainant, the same cannot attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainants did not file paper publication said to have been made by the 1^st opposite party at Guntur to attracts jurisdiction of this Forum.  As already stated above since the complainants failed to establish the cause of action as mentioned in their representation, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered.

14.    POINT NO. 2     In view of the findings on point No.1, this point is not dealt with.

15.    POINT NO. 3     In view of the above finding on point No.1 regarding the territorial jurisdiction, this complaint is liable to be returned for presentation before the proper Forum.

16.   In the result, complaint is returned for presentation in Proper Forum. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 7^th day of June, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainants:

                                     PRESIDENT