Sri Debasish Bhattacharya, Member

This appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the Order dated 30-07-2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum, North 24 Parganas (for short, District Forum) in C. C. No. 268/2013, whereby the instant complaint case was dismissed.

The facts of the present case, as per the Complainant, are that after successfully cracking the CLAT Examination (2011-2012), he applied before the OP No. 2 Institution for admission in 5 year BA, LLB course under the NRI Sponsored category.  It is asserted by the Complainant that as per Rules, it was incumbent for NRI sponsored students to submit, amongst host of other documents, affidavit of sponsorship from an NRI at the time of admission. It is stated that although he could not secure such authorization from an NRI at the time of admission, the authority of OP No. 2 Institution granted provisional admission to him upon payment of a sum of Rs. 5,31,600/.  It is the case of the Complainant that on 15-07-2011, the NRI sponsor expressed his inability to give any affidavit of sponsorship to bear the expenses.  Accordingly, the provisional admission of the Complainant was cancelled by the OP No. 2.  Thereafter, vide a letter dated 19-07-2011, Complainant’s father requested the OP No. 2 to refund the money.  Besides, two reminders letters also followed it, but to no avail.  Hence, the case was filed by the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum.

In its defence, it is articulated by the OP No. 1 that it is neither a necessary party nor proper party to this case. There is no cause of action against this OP, nor any relief sought for by the Complainant against this OP.  It is asserted by this OP that CLAT fee is independent and it is charged exclusively for meeting the expenditure of CLAT examination. Being a conducting University of CLAT examination, it has got nothing to do regarding admission and subsequent cancellation of the admission of the Complainant from the OP No. 2 Institution.  Thus, it has prayed for dismissal of the case.  

Short Case of the OP No. 2, on the other hand, is that the Ld. District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this case as it is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. As the Complainant failed to give sponsor affidavit which  was mandatory in nature as per the CLAT prospectus in respect of an NRI candidate, the provisional admission of the Complainant was cancelled although it caused huge financial loss to this OP.  It is claimed by this OP that the allegation of default/negligence and deficiency in service was wholly misconceived, groundless and untenable in law, and as such, it prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any legal lacunae or not.

Decision with reasons

First let us consider, whether the Ld. District Forum indeed lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant dispute or not. It is claimed by the Appellant that his father electronically transmitted the requisite fee from Kolkata.  Further, the initial payment was made to the office of the Respondent No. 1.  Also, application was submitted to the office of the Respondent No. 1, CLAT was held at Kolkata by the Respondent No. 1  and the result was intimated by the office of the Respondent No. 1. Thus, part of the cause of action took place within the local limit of the Ld. District Forum and accordingly, the instant complaint case was rightly filed before the Ld. District Forum.  In support of his contention, Appellant has referred to a decision of this Commission being no. FA/401/2012.

It is true that the Respondent No. 1 is housed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  However, it has been made crystal clear by the Respondent No. 1 that it merely conducted the CLAT examination and it has got nothing to do regarding admission and subsequent cancellation of the admission of the Appellant from the Respondent No. 2 University.  Besides, all fees, including CLAT examination fees was paid in favour of the Respondent No. 2. Above all, there is no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No. 1.

Taking into consideration such fact into consideration, we are of opinion that simply because the Respondent No. 1 conducted the CLAT examination and declared the result, so by impleading him as a party to the case, territorial jurisdiction cannot be invoked upon the Ld. District Forum.  Fact of the matter is that, whatever grievance the Complainant has, it is all directed against the Respondent No. 2, who does not have any branch office/campus situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. No cause of action, even in part, took place within the confinement of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

Accordingly, by dismissing the complaint case, the Ld. District Forum did no wrong.  The impugned Order is perfectly in order and does not suffer from any infirmity and as such, we see no reason whatsoever to modify/set aside the same.

In view of our findings that the instant complaint case is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, we are not inclined to deal with the merit of the case, lest the same may result in passing conflicting order, which is not desirable under any circumstances. 

Appellant is at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate Forum.  He may seek relief for excluding the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit in terms of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported in 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583.

Accordingly, this appeal fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that FA/926/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondents.  Parties do bear their respective costs.