State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Abhishek Kumar vs The Director, Indian Institute Of ... on 13 August, 2013
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA, CAMP AT DHARAMSHALA.
First
Appeal No: 277/2012.
Date
of Decision: 13.08.2013.
Abhishek Kumar s/o Sh. Kuldeep Kumar,
R/o Tika Kanda, V.P.O. Sunhi,
Tehsil Baroh, District
Kangra, H.P.
Appellant.
Versus
The Director,
Indian Institute of
Planning and Management (IIPM),
IIPM Campus, Satbari Chandan Haula,
Chattarpur Road, New Delhi 110074.
Respondent.
Coram
Honble
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For
the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ex-parte.
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, alleging that he read an advertisement got published by the respondent, at his native place in Kangra District and on the basis of what he read, he applied to the respondent for admission at the Institute of the respondent and remitted a sum of `525/- on account of price of admission form and later on, when he was admitted, a sum of `1,09,000/- was remitted as admission and other charges. He alleged that later on he came to know that the course, for which admission was taken by him at the Institute of the respondent, was not recognized and, therefore, the certificate, which he was to get on completing the course, was of no use. He alleged that this amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. He prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent to refund the amount of `1,09,000/- and also claimed compensation. It was pleaded that the District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala had the jurisdiction, because the advertisement was read by the appellant in Kangra District and the price of admission form as also the admission fee were remitted by him from Kangra District. It was also pleaded that the respondent had its place of work in Kangra District.
3. Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same. Appellant is aggrieved by this order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
5. Respondents place of business is at New Delhi, as is clear from the address of the respondent in the cause title. It is not indicated as to what business the respondent is engaged in within the area of Kangra District. As regards the plea of the appellant that advertisement was read in the area of Kangra District and the money was remitted from Kangra District to the respondent, suffice it to say that reading of an advertisement got published by the respondent and the remission of the money to it in response to the advertisement do not constitute the cause of action or a part of it and, therefore, the District Forum having jurisdiction over the area, where the advertisement was read or from where the money was remitted, cannot entertain and adjudicate on the plea that a part of cause of action has arisen in the area covered by the jurisdiction of the concerned Forum. Law is very clear on the point. If reference is required, the same may be made to Ram Agency versus Ashok Chander Chandmal, 1995(1) CPJ 36, HUDA versus Vipin Kumar, 1995 1995(1) CPJ 235 and ONGC versus Utpal Kumar (1994) IV SCC
711.
6. As a result of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.
7. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member August 13, 2013.
DC Dhiman) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?