BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 37/2012.
THIS THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- K. Mrudula Kumari D/o. K. Srinivasulu, Age: 23
years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Plot No. 30 Door No. 5-3-342, Lakshmi Nagar, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Principal AME’s Dental College & Hospital
Manik Nagar, Bijanagera Road, Raichur.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposite to pay total sum of Rs.
4,90,000/- with interest on different heads as noted in her complaint
Date of institution :- 14-05-12.
Notice served :- 24-05-12.
Date of disposal :- 12-10-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Sateesh.V. Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. B.P.H., Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant K.Mrudula Kumari against the opposite Principal, Dental College & Hospital, Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay total sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- with interest on different heads, as noted in her complaint.
2. IA-1 is filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay in filing her complaint.
3. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, she was the student in the college of opposite in the academic year 2005-06. She admitted to 1st year BDS Course by paying an amount of Rs. 5,80,000/- on different dates, as admission fee, refresher fee, college fee and tuition fee etc., Opposite Institution has not provided tuition for the 1st year BDS to the complainant. Hence, she failed in the 1st year. Thereafter, she repeatedly tried to get through examinations with five attempts, but she failed in all attempts. Hence, she sustained loss of additional amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- due to the said act of opposite, she undergone mental distress, her father spent huge amount for her recovery, she recovered in the month of February-2011, she requested the opposite to refund the amount paid for 2nd year & 3rd year BDS and refresher fees with amount spent for additional admission. Opposite shown its negligence in refunding the amount. Hence, she filed this complaint against opposite for the reliefs as noted in it.
4. IA-1 is filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act to condone the delay in filing her complaint for the reasons that, she became depression in the year 2008 and with great difficulty she recovered in the year 2011. Hence, she requested to condone the delay of three years ten months in filing this complaint.
5. Opposite appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed his written version by denying all the allegations made in the complaint and also he denied the grounds made out by the complainant in IA-1 and prayed for to dismiss IA-1 as complainant not shown proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay of three years ten months in filing her complaint. He also denied all the allegations made in the complaint and prayed for to dismiss of it among other grounds.
6. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant shows proper, sufficient, reasonable and good grounds to condone the delay of three years ten months in filing this complaint, as prayed in IA-1 filed U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act.?
2. Whether the complainant proves the alleged negligence against opposite.
3. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as noted in
her complaint.?
4. What order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In negative.
(2) In negative.
(3) In negative.
(4) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
8. IA-1 is filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of three years ten months in filing her complaint. Admittedly there is a delay of three years ten months in filing this complaint. Now, we have to see as to whether her application IA-1 reveals proper, sufficient, reasonable and good grounds to condone the abnormal delay of three years ten months in filing this complaint. In this regard, we have some materials from Para-13 of IA-1 to see as to whether, the said reasons are proper, sufficient and goods grounds to condone the delay. According to her, in the month of June 2008, she went in depression due to the alleged act of opposite, that means to say that, this complainant has not initiated any legal action against opposite within two years from the date of cause of action, that means within two years from the academic year 2005-06. Admittedly this complaint is on 14-05-2012. Now, it is settled principles of law is that, issuance of legal notice to opposite, will not enlarge the limitation period of two years and the date of issuance of legal notice cannot be taken as a date of cause of action.
9. The grounds stated in Para-13 of her application has not supported by any medical evidence or any other kind of believable evidence, hence we are of the clear view that, this is not a proper case to condone the abnormal delay of three years ten months in filing her complaint, As such, this complaint is barred by limitation and accordingly, we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. On perusal of the affidavit-evidence of complainant PW-1 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 and on the other hand, affidavit-evidence of opposite RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. We are of the clear view that, the complainant has no case to say that, she failed in 1st year BDS due to alleged negligent service of opposite.
Accordingly, we have not noticed any kind of deficiency in service of opposite in the said alleged circumstances of this case, hence, we answered Point No-2 in negative.
POINT NO.3:-
11. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, the complainant is not entitled to get any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint
POINT NO.4:-
12. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 to 3, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
IA-1 filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(a) (2) of C.P. Act is dismissed. Consequently this complaint is dismissed as time barred complaint and also it is dismissed on its merits.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 12-10-12)
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
