BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM:: AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 14th day of October, 2009 Coram: 1. Sri.Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, B.Sc., B.L., Member 3. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc., B.L., Member C.C.No.19/2009 Between: Cherukumalli Srinivasa Rao, s/o.Ramaiah, age: 44 eyars, occu: Govt. employee, r/o.H.No.4-2-88/2, Khanapuram haveli, Khammam urban mandal, Khammam District. …Complainant and The Correspondent, Narayana Coaching Centre, near Chandrababu Naidu colony, behind Model Super Market, Benji circle, Vijayawada. …Opposite party. This C.C. came before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.N.Srinivasa Charyulu, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri.K.Babji, Advocate for opposite party; upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order: O R D E R (per Sri. Vijay Kumar, President) 1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the son of the complainant has completed Intermediate. The opposite party agent approached the complainant and said handy- dandy about their institution for long term coaching for EMCET at Vijayawada headquarters. The opposite party agent had taken the installment fee amount at Khammam and taken away the son of complainant to Vijayawada branch. The opposite party promised to give admission to the son of complainant at Main campus at Vijayawada and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- through receipt ebaring No.0004147, dt.25-6-2007. The opposite party cheated the complainant by giving admission in another campus, which is unauthorized campus by allotted admission No.142-1265 instead of main branch at Vijayawada. Thus, the complainant demanded the opposite party either to give admission in Main branch at Vijayawada or to refund the amount. For that, the opposite party promised to send the amount to the house address. Even after lapse of 1 ½ year above, the opposite party did not refund the amount. Thus, the complainant incurred huge amount nearly Rs.10,000/- on the false promise made by the opposite party and suffered with mental pain and suffering. This act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint. 2. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed the counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint and it is further submitted by the opposite party that after taking admission in the opposite party institution, within one month, the complainant taken away his son from the institution. The management of opposite party tried to contact the complainant, as his son was not attending classes, but there is no response from him. Once the seat is allotted to one candidate, the same cannot be allotted to any other student and the seat will be kept vacant and the opposite party will loose the fee of those candidates. Therefore, from the beginning itself, the management used to inform the same to the parents. The complainant himself taken the student from the institution voluntarily, the question of refund of fee does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents have been filed and marked as Exhibits. Ex.A.1 - Xerox copy of fee receipt bearing admission No.142-1265, for Rs.12,000/- Ex.A.2 - office copy of Legal notice, dt.21-10-2008 Ex.A.3 - Postal receipt and acknowledgment 4. Both parties filed their written arguments. Upon hearing the oral arguments, the point that arose for consideration is, 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to ask for refund of fee paid towards admission in the institution of opposite party? 2. Whether this forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? Points No.1 and 2: 5. The grievance of the complainant is that one agent from opposite party collected fee amount at Khammam and took his son to Vijayawada, but as per Ex.A.1, the fee amount is said to have paid at Narayana Coaching Centre, Hyderabad. It is further case of the complainant that his son got admission in Vijayawada coaching centre. As per the complaint, the son of the complainant got admission at Narayana Coaching centre, Vijayawada. As per Ex.A.1, he paid fee at Narayana Coaching Centre, Hyderabad. In the complaint itself, it is mentioned that the agent of the opposite party collected fee amount at Khammam, but no scrap of paper is filed to show any amount is collected at Khammam. The jurisdiction of District Consumers Forum of Khammam is invoked by the complainant to meet his convenience. In fact no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumers Forum, Khammam. A part of cause of action has arisen when the son of the complainant got admission in Vijayawada and the part of cause of action has arisen when the amount of Rs.12,000/- is paid at Narayana Coaching Centre, Hyderabad. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumers Forum, Khammam. The complainant ought to have filed the complaint either at Vijayawada or Hyderabad, District Consumers Forum, instead of filing the complaint in proper jurisdiction, he presented the complaint before this forum, which lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint is returned with a direction to the complainant to file the complaint in the proper jurisdiction. The time consumed during pendency of the complaint can be condoned. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on 14th day of October, 2009. PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM KHAMMAM Witnesses examined for complainant: -Nil- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -Nil-
Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Xerox copy of fee receipt bearing admission No.142-1265, for Rs.12,000/- Ex.A.2 - office copy of Legal notice, dt.21-10-2008 Ex.A.3 - Postal receipt and acknowledgment PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM KHAMMAM |
