DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 15^th  day of March 2014 

Present:  Smt.Seena.H.  President

              Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member

              Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                      Date of filing :   29/11/2013

           CC No.201/2013

Pranav ,

S/o.M.Chandran,

Anugraha Nivas Puthiyangam Road,

Koppam, Palakkad

(By Adv.R.Manikandan & P.Vatsala)                -                  Complainant

        Vs 

R.C.Natarajan

The Director,

M/s.T.A.Pai Management Institute,

Post Box No.9,

Manipal – 576 104, Karnataka                         -                  Opposite party

(By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran & Latha C.S.Holla)

 O R D E R

Order by Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief:

Complainant joined the opposite party institution for pursuing Post Graduate  Diploma in Management studies during the academic year 2012-14. Complainant has preferred his application form from his home town Palakkad and also paid the 1^st installment fee of Rs.1 lakh through ICICI Bank, Palakkad.  1^st term result was published on 23/11/13. Opposite party intimated the complainant and some other students that as they had not acquired the required result in the 1^st trimester exam and hence  they had to withdraw from the course immediately. Complainant and 2 other students were forced to leave the campus, but rest of the persons were allowed to continue. Complainant demanded the 2^nd installment  fee already paid which was remaining unutilized. Opposite party refused the same. Thereafter a lawyer notice dated 25/01/2013  was caused demanding the refund. Opposite party replied raising false and untenable contention. According to complainant the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency  in service. Complainant  prays for an order to refund Rs.3,87,428/- being the 2^nd installment alongwith 12% interest per annum and Rs.1 lakh as compensation. 

Opposite party filed version contending inter alia that the Forum lakhs territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and hence the complaint  is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

Heard both parties regarding the preliminary issue.

It is an admitted fact that the opposite party has received the 1^st installment  of Rs.1 lakh, balance 1^st installment  fee of US $7500 and second installment fee of Rs.3,87,428/- The question raised herein is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act speaks about territorial jurisdiction

Section 11. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees (twenty lakhs))

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business, or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where  there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain:

PROVIDED that in such either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Admittedly opposite party’s place of business is at Manipal and there is no branch at Palakkad. The only question  is to be demanded is whether payment of the initial fee through  ICICI Bank Palakkad confer jurisdiction to the Forum under the head Section 11 Clause (c.) “the cause of action, wholly or in part arises”

Both counsel had vehemently argued before us regarding the point. According to the complainant, payment of initial fee from Palakkad can be considered  as part of cause of action and hence the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the compliant. Moreover cause of action is not a single act but is a bundle of fact leading to the dispute. Opposite party placed before us decision rendered by Hon’ble  National Commission and various State Commission in support of their contentions. The one which is applicable  to the case in hand is noted below:

Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipen Kumar Kohli 1(1995)CPJ 235 (NC). It was held that the mere fact that the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi received the earnest money in cash from the complainant  and remitted it to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad does mean that part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.

In the light of the  above decision, we are of the view that the Forum lacks jurisdiction  to entertain the complaint. Preliminary issue found in favour of opposite party.

In view of the above findings, without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint . Complainant is directed to approach  appropriate Forum for relief.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th  day of  March  2014. 

      Sd/-

  Seena H

  President   

     Sd/-

 Shiny.P.R.

  Member

   Sd/-

 Suma.K.P.

 Member