State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prabhmeet Bawa vs Amity University & Anr. on 20 April, 2015
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 20.04.2015 First Appeal No.141/2015 (Arising out of the order dated 11.02.2015 in Complaint Case No. 326/2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North-East), Nand Nagari, Delhi) Prabhmeet Bawa D/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh R/o 436/8 Durga Puri Extn., Loni Road, Delhi-110093 ......Appellant VERSUS The Registrar AMITY UNIVERSITY Noida, Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. The Vice Chancellor AMITY UNIVERSITY Noida, Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. Dr. Ashok Chauhan, Founder AMITY UNIVERSITY E-27, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 .....Respondents CORAM N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) S C Jain, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) Judgment Heard on admission. Present appeal has been filed against the order dt. 11.02.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North-East), Nand Nagri, Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds inter-alia that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was also held by the Ld. District Forum that the matter involves recording of statements of number of witnesses from both the sides and a close scrutiny of plethora of documents. Ld. Trial Forum observed that recording of the evidence cannot be done in a summary procedure as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complainant joined a two year full time post graduation degree course of M.Phil (Clinical Psychology) for the academic session of 2007-2009, Amity University, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. Grievance of the appellant is that after having studied the course for about one year, he found that the said course was not approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI).
In relation to the objection of the territorial jurisdiction, the appellant has submitted that the founder of the Amity University named Dr. Ashok Chauhan has his residence at E-27, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. Merely because the founder of the respondent university has his residence in New Delhi, Consumer Courts of New Delhi, do not have the jurisdiction. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that Delhi Courts do not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Appeal is hence dismissed in limini.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.
(N P Kaushik) Member (Judicial) (S C Jain) Member
(f)