DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC. No. 538 of 25-11-2010

Decided on : 08-12-2010

Smt. Devinder Kaur Mann, aged 55 years D/o Sh. Bachhitar Singh 637, Phase 1, Model Town, Bathinda 151 001.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Vinayaka Mission University through its Registrar Salem Sankari Main Road (NH-46), Ariya Noor, Salem, Tamilnadu 636308. India

2. Additional Controller of Examination Distance Education Sankari Main Road (NH-46), Ariya Noor, Salem, Tamilnadu 636308, India.

3. Vice Chancellor, Vinayaka Mission University Salem Sankari Main Road (NH-46), Ariya Noor, Salem, Tamilnadu 636308, India

... Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Jai Gopal Goyal, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Not summoned.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ’Act’). The complainant did M. Phil political science from Vinayaka Mission University vide registration No. A6M 1110171 academic year A 2006, month and year of exam, December, 2007 for semester 1 for which opposite parties have issued detail mark card vide No. 183095 and certificate vide No. 183243. The opposite parties have failed to send the certificate of degree passed by the complainant in the subject of M. Phil political science vide above said registration in the year December, 2007 in first class. The complainant alleged that she did M. Phil in the distance education course from the opposite parties at their web site www.vmrf.edu.in at Bathinda in response to the approval granted to them under UGC Act, 1956. The complainant under RTI on 27-03-2010 and 05-05-2010 applied for seeking information regarding the status of information sought by her from opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 respectively, but still the opposite parties have failed to respond. The complainant paid Rs. 1025/- vide demand draft No. 696607 drawn on S.B.O.P. for issuance of degree but the opposite parties provided only provisional certificate instead of original degree certificate. The complainant required the said degree for her profession/services being rendered in the field of imparting education to the students being Principal of Khalsa Girls College, Bathinda. The complainant sent registered A.D. legal notice dated 6-10-2010 to the opposite parties, but they did not reply the same. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to send original degree certificate of M. Phil political science to the complainant and to pay her compensation and cost.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record. A record placed on file does not show that any office of the opposite parties is situated at Bathinda as all the three opposite parties made by the complainant against whom he has filed the complaint belong to Tamilnadu. As per Section 11 (2) (a)(b)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, envisage :-

   “(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-

(a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or

(b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

3. No doubt, the complainant has sent legal notice from Bathinda but the complainant has failed to prove that any cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen at Bathinda. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in case titled B.M.Singhal Vs. M/s. Track on Line, Net-4, India Pvt. Ltd. 2004(1) Judicial Reports Consumer 64, wherein, it has been held that:-

   “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11 – Territorial jurisdiction – Internet Contract – Domain name – Registration of – Online offer – Appellant contacted on internet (from Gwalior) for registration – Gave an offer, acceptance of which was to be made at Delhi – Contract was to be executed in digital form which was not executed –Cannot be said that there was concluded contract on internet at Gwalior – Respondent carries on business from Delhi – Does not have any office at Gwalior – District Forum, Gwalior had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

4. Hence, this complaint fails for want of territorial jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

    

5. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned.

    

Pronounced :

08-12-2010

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul) Member