KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Appeal No.127/2009 JUDGMENT DATED : 06.03.2010 PRESENT:- SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Menon. N. Gopalakrishnan, V/154, Sreyas, Peringavu, : APPELLANT Thrissur. (By Adv.P.Rajmohan) Vs 1. The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palakali Nagar, Madurai. : RESPONDENTS 2. The Programme Officer, Ansar College, Madurai Kamaraj University, Perumbilavu, Karikkad.P.O., Thrissur. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.12.2008 of CDRF, Thrissur in C.C.No.206/07. The complaint was preferred by the appellant herein as the complainant against the respondents as opposite parties whereby the Forum below dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal is filed. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had registered for M.Phil course in labour studies with the 1st opposite party, Madurai Kamaraj University and appeared for the examination and attended three papers. When the mark list was issued only the results of two papers were noted and on enquiry it was intimated that one answer book was missing and he was compelled to write the examination once again. It is his case that though he requested for the mark lists and certificates the same were not issued and only on 17.11.2006 the mark list was received by him, even then the 1st opposite party failed in issuing the M.Phil degree certificate. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed for a direction to the 1st opposite party to issue M.Phil certificate and return the original of M.A certificate, to direct the 1st opposite party to make necessary arrangements for the submission of thesis on PhD, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. 3. The 1st opposite party filed version and contended that the complaint ought to have been dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction itself. It is their case that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Forum below. They submitted that the second opposite party had started functioning only on 08.12.97 whereas the complainant wrote examination at their Coimbatore study centre in April 1996 and 1997 respectively. They submitted that all the certificates were given to the complainant on 23.03.2007 itself and there is no deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The 2nd opposite party has also filed version following the contentions of the 1st opposite party. It is submitted by him that the complainant did not join for any of the course of study centre and the 2nd opposite party had been drawn into party array only to create an impression that the complaint could be adjudicated by the Thrissur Forum. The 2nd opposite party also questioned the aspect of territorial jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of the complaint in limine. 5. The Forum below had dismissed the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction itself and it is aggrieved by the said order that the present appeal is preferred by the complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has argued that the Forum did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in its correct perspective. He has submitted before us that the Forum below had the territorial jurisdiction as the 2nd opposite party is functioning as an agent of the 1st opposite party at Thrissur. According to him the Forum below ought to have found that the 2nd respondent/2nd opposite party was functioning at Thrissur as the branch of the 1st respondent/1st opposite party at the time of issuance of M.Phil certificate dated 22.03.2007 to the appellant/complainant. Thus, he canvassed for the position that the Forum below has failed in finding that it had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as and when the complaint was filed before the Forum. It is argued by the learned counsel that the opposite parties had committed grave deficiency of service in causing delay of more than 10 years in issuing the M. Phil certificate to the complainant. 6. On hearing the counsel for the appellant and on perusing the documents we find that it is the admitted case of the complainant that he had registered for the M.Phil course in labour studies with the 1st opposite party in the year 1994 and had appeared for the examination during April 1996 and 1997. It is also found that the complainant had alleged deficiency of service in causing delay of more than 10 years in issuing the M.Phil certificate by the 1st opposite party. The learned counsel would submit that the Forum below had dismissed the complaint instead of finding that it had the territorial jurisdiction as 2nd opposite party was functioning as a study centre at Thrissur when the complaint was filed. He would also argue that there was deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party in taking more than 10 years in issuing the Mphil certificate. But on a perusal of the version filed by the opposite party, we find that the 2nd opposite party, the study centre had started functioning only on 08.12.1997. It is to be noted that the complainant has not disputed the said fact. It is also found that the complainant had registered for the course in 1994 and has written the examination in April 1996 and 1997 respectively. The complainant has no case that at the time of registration or at the time of examination the 2nd opposite party was functioning at Thrissur. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the complainant has registered or appeared for the examination through the 2nd opposite party. Mere functioning of the office at a later stage cannot confer any jurisdiction for filing a complaint. More over the complainant alleges that the 1st opposite party took more than 10 years in issuing the certificates even though he had written the examination as back in 1997. Though the Forum below did not consider the question of limitation it is found that the complaint had been filed after a lapse of nearly 10 years which in itself is time barred. Thus, in all aspects the Forum below is justified in dismissing the complaint. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the forum below. In the result the appeal is dismissed, thereby the order dated 19.12.2008 in C.C.No.206/07 of CDRF, Thrissur is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there shall be no order as to costs. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER Kb. | 
