D.o.F:30/07/2010
D.o.O:10/1/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.167/10
Dated this, the 10th day of January 2011.
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Sheik Muhammed Irshad,
S/o Shaik Jinner, : Complainant
R/at Kushal Nagar, Po.Kanhangad.
(Adv.K.Janardhanan, Hosdurg)
The Principal,
Academy of Aviation &Engineering
(Approved by Director General of Civil Aviation : Opposite party
Govt.of India) for AME Course,
38-39, Prestige Enclave, Bettahalasur Cross,
B.B.Road,,NH-7,Bangalore North-561157,
Karnataka State.
(Exparte)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
That Mr.Sheik Muhammed Irshad filed this complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service.
The facts in brief are as follows:
That the complainant applied for admission in Aviation & Engineering before the opposite party’s institution in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering course. The opposite party collected 50,000/- from the complainant towards admission fee. But the opposite party has not given admission to their institution hence the complainant asked to return the admission fee back. But the opposite party has not paid the amount back inspite of repeated demands of the complainant. Then the complainant sent a lawyer notice demanding the amount. Even though the opposite party received the notice but there is no response to the above notice. Hence this complaint is filed seeking necessary reliefs.
The complaint was taken in file and issued notice to the opposite party. Opposite party duly received the notice but not turned up. Hence the name of opposite party called absent and set exparte.
3. The opposite party filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant. On going through the entire evidence and on enquiry the first point raised for consideration is whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
4. According to Sec.11(2)A of Consumer Protection Act complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limit 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) omitted since not relevant
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part
In this case the entire transaction between the complainant and opposite party was at Bangalore. The opposite party has no branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum or the opposite party is neither resides nor carries on its business or has a no branch office in Kasaragod District. There is no cause of action either wholly or partly arose within the limits of this Forum.
Hence this Forum is not in a position to entertain this complaint due to lack of jurisdiction. Hence the complaint is returned to the complainant for filing before the proper Forum having jurisdiction to get his grievance redressed. However the time taken for pursuing this proceedings has to be excluded under Art.14 of the Limitation Act, if he intends to file fresh complaint.
MEMBER PRESIDEN T
eva
