Orissa

Rayagada

CC/385/2016

Sri Chinmaya Ranjan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proncipal Kalinga vIKAS College - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 385/ 2016.                                        Date.     12.   12   . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                   Member

Sri Chinmaya Ranjan Sahu, S/O: Sri Kishore Chandra Sahu,  Being minor represented   by his legal guardian and father Sri Kishore Chandra Sahu,  Brahmin Street, Po:Bissamcuttack,    Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                    …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Principal, Kalinga  Vikas  + 2 College, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar.                                                                                                                 .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- In person

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

         

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  advance  money.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

                That the complainant took  admission in the college of the O.P on  Dt. 26.7.2013 by paying an advance sum of Rs. 25,000/- for such service promised by  the O.P. and this amount is paid towards  the consideration for getting the service. After joining in the  college , it is noticed that there is no such faculty members to teach the students. The hostel facility is also not good and they have never taken any care to provide  good food  to the students and to attend to their  day to day needs and  this fact was brought  to the notice of the O.P. but there is no such  improvement.  If the things  will go like this definitely there will be health problem and also diminishing the educational career of the  student. As such the student has asked for the C.L.C and refund   of the advance amount paid to the O.P.  but it was not  being done. Hence this case.  The complainant prays  the forum direct the O.P to refund advance amount  received  and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper.

                On being noticed the O.P present and  filed written version in their contention O.P. vehemently   refuting the allegation made by the complainant.  The complainant  is barred by  limitation as that have been filed  beyond limitation prescribed by the law. Again submitted that this forum have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the  complaint  as cause of  action   of Khurda District, this   forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try this case. The complainant has no locus standi to file such case after voluntarily leaving  from the institution  by receiving  the due amount of course fees and C.L.C. and furnishing no objection memo  on Dt.28.8.2013. The complainant and his father  have already  declared that they have no further claim over any financial transaction made by them earlier  to the O.P.  There is no subsequent matter is continuing  between parties  after the date 28.8.2013 till today.

The O.Ps  appeared and filed their written version. Heard arguments from  the O.Ps   and complainant .    Perused the record, documents, filed by both  the parties. 

            Both the parties  have  vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                        Findings .

          The O.P. in his written version filed  the preliminary objection that the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose more than 3(three) years back. The contention of the O.P is justified as per the provision laid down in Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act.  Section-24(A) deals with the limitation period . It provides that no complaint  shall be admitted by the Dist. Forum unless it is filed within two years from the date of on which the cause of action has arisen.  In the instant case it is observed that the cause of action arose on Dt. 28.8.2013. Thereafter  on the part of the complainant  there had not been any correspondence made to the O.Ps on the caption issue. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on Dt. 16.12.2016  which is older than 3 years. So the complainant can not invoke the jurisdiction of this forum  to adjudicate   upon the issue.  More over the complainant did not produce any evidence to condone the delay.

          During the course of hearing the O.P filed letter Dt.16.8.2013 which was  written by the father of the complainant to the O.P.  and expressed in  written application  that he is unable to pay the dues in  due time.  So he wants the C.L.C. of the  complainant which is marked as Annnexure-1.  Further complainant and his  father  on Dt. 28.8.2013   received refunded money of  7,500/- and declared  in its acknowledgement that further the complainant has no claim over  any other financial transaction made by them with the O.P.(copies of the above letter which is in  the file marked as Annexure-2).

          The O.P.  raised another objection  with regard to maintainability of the complaint since the cause of action arose  at Bhubaneswar which comes under the revenue Dist. of Khurda. He submitted that the Dist. Consumer forum, at Bhubaneswar has got territorial jurisdiction  to entertain this dispute, but not at Rayagada.

On perusal of the complaint the  complainant had joined at Kalinga  Vikas  + 2 College, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar  which is comes under the purview  of the territorial jurisdiction  of the Dist. Consumer Forum, Khurda, at Bhubaneswar.  In view of this we feel that we have got no jurisidiction to entertain the dispute.  

So going further into the details  of the case, we dismiss the complaint petition.

In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, written argument  we find  the complainant  is not  entitled  any relief in the present case.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                              

ORDER.

            In the resultant    the complaint petition is dismissed. Parties are left to bear own cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this      12              ^th.   Day of  December,   2017.

 

 

 Member.                                                            Member.                                                             President