Haryana

StateCommission

A/782/2016

SANJAY ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAV BHARTI UNIVERSITY - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP GOYAT

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.782   of 2016

 Date of Institution:29.08.2016

  Date  of  Decision:06.09.2018

 

Sanjay Arora S/oSh.Jagdish Lal, R/o H.No.853, Sector 13, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. The Manav Bharti University through its Vice Chancellor, Village Laddo, P.O. Sultanpur, Tehsil and District Solan (H.P.).
2. The Registrar, Manav Bharti University, Village Laddo, P.O. Sultanpur,Tehsil and Distt. Solan (H.P.).
3. Sh.Sunil Lohan (Mediator), Information Centre of respondent No.1 under the name & style of Rise Technology, Neelkanth Complex, Camp Chowk, Hisar at present Iind Floor, Mittal complex, opposite Civil Hospital, Hisar.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.M.S.Bitta, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

                   Respondent No.3 already ex parte vide impugned order dated 23.05.2018.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          The facts material to the case are that he applied for admission after clearing entrance test conducted by opposite party (O.P.) No.1 in Ph.D in the subject of Computer Science Engineering (CSE) of Manav Bharati University during the academic session 2010-12. The admission form was filled and sent to O.P.No.2. The complainant was allowed for admission and information was sent to O.P.No.3 to deposit the requisite fees. The complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- with O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.3. Topic of Wireless application protocol on 4G was approved by Advisory committee vide letter dated 03.06.2011 and O.P.No.1 and 2 allotted guide of Manav Bharati University, CSE Department and Dr. Chander Kant, Assistant Professor.  He completed his thesis work on the approved topic upto 03.06.2013.  He deposited another amount of Rs.50,000/- to the O.ps.  It was further alleged that he deposited remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.30,000/- to his guide and  Rs.7000/- to respondent No.3 i.e. mediator.  It has brought into the notice of the complainant that university was not competent to grand Ph.D. degree before applying for admission. Thus there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of the O.ps.

2.      In reply, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed separate written statement and admitted the admission of the complainant in Ph.D for the year 2010-2011 in the university.  O.P.No.1 was not sent the identity card of the complainant to O.P.No.3.  O.P.No.1 clearly stted that complainant can take refund of his fee deposited by him in the university. O.P.No.1 was competent to award PH.D. degree vide letter dated shimla-2 dated 23.04.2010 and competent to give admission, but , the complainant did not produce any progress report and H.P. Govt. refused to continue the above said course of Ph.D.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2.  Preliminary objections  about maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      O.P.No.3 filed separate written statement.  O.P.No.3 denied the information and necessary fees of the complainant was sent through him. In fact, the O.P.No.3 has no concern and connection with complainant.  The university was never sent the identity card and synopsis of the complainant to it and same was not collected by him from it.  Preliminary objections about jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction vide impugned order dated 26.07.2016.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      The argument have been advanced by Sh.Sandeep Goyat, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.M.S.Bitta the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      As a mater of fact and on perusal of the order passed by the learned District Forum, Hisar dated 26.07.2016, it has been conclusively observed that on account of lakh of territorial jurisdiction, the complaint is dismissed.  However the learned District Forum had not made any comments on the merits of the case.  As far as merits are concerned, this issue has been kept open.

8.      In this backdrop, the only question which arises for adjudication of this Commission is as to whether the opposite party No.3-respondent No.3 was having its office at Hisar and was working as a mediator on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2?           If this question would be answered in affirmative and then obviously the learned District Forum, Hisar would be having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and then to decide it afresh on merits. 

9.      Keeping in view the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-complainant and the contesting respondents and on perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that respondent No.1 had made a correspondence through courier and addressed to Sunil Lohan (Mediator) (hereinafter referred as “Respondent No.3”) who was having his information Center at Hisar and was working on behalf of respondent Nos.1and 2.   Even otherwise also for the purpose of submitting the form by the complainant who is now in appeal, the respondent No.3 had charged Rs.6500/- on 30.05.2011 and infact this amount has been debited out of the account of the complainant.  In this regard the written information has also been given by the Branch Office, Punjab National Bank, Dabra, Hisar. As per entry dated 30.05.2011,  the amount of Rs.6500/-  was credited in the account of Sh.Sunil Lohaan vide cheque No.130531. The bank entries debiting the account of the complainant and crediting the said amount in the account of respondent No.3 is sufficient to establish the fact that the respondent No.3 was having an office at Hisar and was working as a mediator on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of getting the students admitted in the  Manav Bharti University, Solan for doing the Ph.D.  As far as pursuing the research course is concerned, the complainant was registered student in the university for the purpose of conducting the research and he has even submitted his thesis

10.    In this respect he has even paid the fees of Rs.50,000/- on 10.12.2010 and 27.05.2011 respectively.  Similarly he had also paid the amount to his supervisor on 12.05.2011 to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as well as Rs.5,000/- on 09.07.2011, the total amount he has paid to his guide was Rs.15,000/-.  As such, in such situation, there is no iota of suspicion that the respondent No.3 was not having its office at Hisar or was not working as a Mediator for the purpose of getting the students admitted in the  Manav Bharti University, Solan. Hence the question is answer in affirmative.

9.      With these observations and discussions, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the learned District Forum had gravely erred while recording the order of dismissal of the complaint merely on the point of territorial jurisdiction. Hence the impugned order dated 26.07.2016 passed by learned District Forum, Hisar is set aside  for all intents and purposes. Since it has also been observed by the learned District Forum that the nothing has been observed or commented upon the merits of the case and it has been kept open.  The matter is remanded back to the District Forum, Hisar to decide the complaint afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to parties to lead their respective evidence. 

 

10.    Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Hisar on 22.10.2018 for further proceedings.  With the above observation, appeal accordingly disposed off.

 

September 06th, 2018                             Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.