For Complainant : Sri K. K. Behera, Advocate & associates.
For Opp. Party : Sri Lal Mohan Mishra, Advocate & associates
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he had taken admission in the +2 Sc Stream in the College of the OP in the 1st year for the academic session 2016-17. It is submitted that the OP contacted the complainant at his residence at Jeypore during April, 2016 through his representative/agent as per their practice and persuaded him to book a seat in their college by giving advance amount. Being convinced the complainant booked a seat in the College of OP and the OP received the booking amount of Rs.50, 000/- in cash from the residence of the complainant for a seat towards “New Admission Booking” and issued money receipt No.5834 dt.20.4.16 out of total yearly fixed amount of Rs.1, 68,000/-. It is further submitted that the complainant reported before the college of the OP during last week of April, 2016. As he had left his parents, he had kept a mobile set with him to talk with his parents to which the OP seized and in spite of requests the OP did not return the handset. It is also further submitted that the OP and its staff started disturbing the complainant through different type of harassments and finally compelled the complainant to leave the college of the OP during 2nd week of May, 2016 and took admission at other college. The complainant as well as his parents requested the OP to refund the booking amount after partial deduction but the OP in spite of assurance did not return the money. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.50, 000/- towards advance taken with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.04.2016 and to pay Rs.35, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant besides refund of cost of handset at Rs.16, 400/-.
2. The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the fact that the complainant had taken admission in their college for the Session, 2016-17. Denying the complainant as their consumer and denying the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain this case, the OP contended that the complainant along with his parent approached the OP at Times Scholar Gurukul, Bhubaneswar and discussed with the College authority about the admission of the complainant in the College. After seeing the mark sheet of the complainant, the OP supplied prospectus and Hostel rules and regulations. The parents of the complainant being agreed had joined the complainant in the college of the OP by signing the prospectus and rules of the college. The OP contended that as per hostel rules, use mobile set is prohibited and the parents are advised to contact their wards through landline of the College and as per college rule, once the admission fees is deposited, it cannot be refunded in any manner. It is also further contended that the complainant did not obey the rules of the college as well as hostel and left college. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant has got admission in the college of the OP in +2 Sc stream for the year, 2016-17. The complainant stated that the agent of the OP approached the complainant and the parents at Jeypore and persuaded them to book a seat for getting admission of the complainant in their college. It is also a fact that the OP has received Rs.50, 000/- as advance on 20.04.2016 from the complainant towards new admission booking.
5. The Op in his counter denied the allegation of the complainant that its agent persuaded the complainant and his parents at Jeypore to book a seat in their college and took advance amount of Rs.50, 000/- from Jeypore. The OP submitted that the complainant and his parents came to the OP at Bhubaneswar and approached the OP for admission in the college of the OP. The OP supplied prospectus and rules of the hostel to the complainant and his parents. After understanding the facts, the parents agreed to join their son in the college and deposited fees as prescribed in the prospectus. Therefore, the OP challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum at Jeypore since all transactions took place at Bhubaneswar.
6. In this case, there should not be any doubt regarding the fact that the complainant being a student is a consumer of the OP. In order to test the territorial jurisdiction of this case, we have carefully gone through the documents available on record. The complainant stated that the agent of the OP received Rs.50, 000/- at Jeypore i.e. from the residence of the complainant and issued necessary documents in support of such payment. The complainant has filed copy of above documents. However, those documents do not send a clear message that the agent of the OP had come to Jeypore to collect the advance amount for admission from the complainant. In view of above facts we do not find any merit regarding territorial jurisdiction of this case to be tried before this Forum. Similarly, there is no evidence forthcoming regarding seizure of handset of the complainant by the college authorities.
7. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant for want of territorial jurisdiction of this complaint but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case. However, the complainant may approach appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction in this matter with proper application to condone the delay in filing the case.
(to dict.)
