APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Appellant | : | Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, Advocate | | | | | | |
PRONOUNCED ON: 9th May 2018 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 21.08.2017, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), vide which, the consumer complaint no. CC/36/2017, filed by the present appellant, before the State Commission was ordered to be dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and it was directed that the complainant may bring proceedings before the appropriate forum as per law. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant completed her B.Arch. (Bachelor of Architecture) Degree from Sharda University, Greater NOIDA and thereafter, decided to pursue the Masters course, M.Arch. for the session 2016-18, for which she made an application for admission at Sharda University, Patna, Bihar. The said university/opposite party (OP) offered her admission in two-year M.Arch. course vide their letter dated 01.07.2016. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,01,000/- with them as fees for the said course, for which a receipt was also issued. However, vide their e-mail dated 07.10.2016, the OP University informed the complainant that they had decided to cancel the M.Arch. course for 2016-18, because only two students had registered for the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of the amount deposited by her i.e. Rs. 2,01,000/- and also sought directions for payment of Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation to her, for the loss of valuable one year of her professional life and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation. 3. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 21.08.2017, dismissed the said complaint on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction and stated as follows in their order:- “21.08.2017 Complainant present. Supplementary affidavit is filed to explain the claim. We find that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,01,000/- (Rupees two lakh one thousand only) passing in the course of M. Arch in the session 2016-18 deposited with the opposite party Sharda University. Complainant claim a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lacs only) and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost. It is well settled that the fancy claim in absence of fundamental facts for such claim the pecuniary jurisdiction of Forums could be determined. We find that the stoke in the alleged claim we do not find pecuniary jurisdiction if so advised complainant may bring proceedings before the appropriate Forum as per law. We make it clear that we have not considered or expressed any opinion on merit of the complaint. Complaint as such is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present appeal. 5. It is observed that the amount of claim made by the complainant has been mentioned as Rs. 40,00,000/- in the order of the State Commission, whereas a copy of the complaint placed on record says that a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- had been demanded. 6. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the order passed by the State Commission was not in accordance with law, because the said Commission should have adjudicated the issue on merits and then awarded suitable compensation to them. When asked to explain the basis for demanding such compensation, the learned counsel submitted an unsigned statement, giving figures of financial loss incurred by the complainant. It has been stated in the said statement that after completing the M.Arch. course, the complainant would have joined job as Assistant Professor/Professor and earned a yearly salary of Rs. 23,01,348.00. Taking into account the fact that the complainant would have served in that capacity for 36 years, the complainant had suffered huge loss and she was required to be compensated for the same. The figure of loss has been stated to be Rs. 42,92,926.40, although from the figures given, the loss works out to be several crores. 7. The learned counsel when asked to explain why the complainant had not given such figures in the body of the complaint, or the memo of appeal, could not give any satisfactory answer for the same. 8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 9. A perusal of the copy of the complaint and also of the memo of appeal reveals that the appellant/complainant has not given any justification as to how a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was demanded as compensation in the consumer complaint. The presumption made at the time of arguments that the complainant could have joined as Assistant Professor/Professor and earn a handsome salary, seems to be an imagination only. It is unreasonable to presume that after completion of the M.Arch. course, the complainant would definitely have got job as an Assistant Professor or Professor. The observation made by the State Commission, therefore, that in the absence of fundamental facts, the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum cannot be determined, is correct. Moreover, the State Commission have already given liberty to the complainant to bring proceedings before appropriate forum as per law. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, which may merit interference in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. The present appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. It is made clear by us also that the complainant shall be at liberty to file fresh complaint before appropriate consumer forum, after providing a logical/reasonable basis for working out the demand for compensation through the consumer complaint. |
