State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Manish Alias Sameer. vs Ms. Namrata. on 20 May, 2022
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. 318/2019
Date of Presentation 26.09.2019
Reserved on 23.04.2022
Date of Order 20.05.2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Manish alias Sameer, Dance Director and Choreographer,
Rock Start Academy R/o Sector 45-A, Ajit Karam Singh
International Public (AKSIP) School, Chandigarh and also Sector
70, The British School, Mohali, Chandigarh.
...Appellant/ Opposite party
Versus
Ms. Namrata, D/o Sh. Y.D. Bhardwaj, R/o C/o Shri O.P. Sharma,
Shiv Niwas, Shiv Nagar, Totu, Shimla, H.P.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, Presiden t
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Duggal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ex-parte
Justice Inder Singh Mehta
O R D E R :-
Instant appeal is arising from order dated 13.08.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No.08/2016, titled Ms. Namrata Versus Manish @ Sameer.
Brief facts of Case:
2. The case of the complainant Ms.Namrata is that the opposite party Sh.Manish alias Sameer claimed himself to be 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Manish @ Sameer Versus Ms. Namrata F.A. No.318/2019 a Dance Director and Choreographer, running his business at various places in Chandigarh and allures young girls and boys by giving them chance in bollywood and dance shows on National television. The opposite party approached the complainant on 31.08.2015, in Shimla and allured to take admission, in his rock Star Dance Academy, on the pretext that he will give chance to her in bollywood and in the Dance reality show in National Television. The complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 01.09.2015 with the opposite party at Shimla and she was asked to visit Chandigarh for training programme. The complainant thereafter started going to the center/place where the opposite party claimed to be running the dance academy in Chandigarh but no training programme was found to be going on at the place. Ultimately opposite party told the complainant that no training programme is being organized. The complainant, thereafter asked the opposite to refund amount of Rs.50,000/- to her but he refused to do so.
3. The opposite party did not appear before the District Forum below to contest the complaint and was proceeded against ex-parte on 11.03.2016.
4 The Learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant.
5. The Appellant/ opposite party aggrieved from the said order filed the present appeal.
2
Manish @ Sameer Versus Ms. Namrata F.A. No.318/2019
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/ opposite party and gone through the record of District Forum below. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent / complainant before this Commission
7. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the District Forum below is bad in law and the appeal be allowed and impugned order dated 13.08.2019 be set aside. It is further submitted that District Forum below has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. During the course of arguments, learned counsel of the appellant admits that appellant has received Rs.50,000/- from the respondent at Chandigarh.
FINDINGS 8 The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount was received at Chandigarh and courts at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is without any substance for want of filing of reply or not challenging the ex-parte order dated 11.03.2016, before this Commission.
9. A bare perusal of Section-11(2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reveals that complaint can be instituted where the cause of action wholly or partly arises.
10. As per allegations made in the complaint, the opposite party contacted the complainant at Shimla on 31.08.2015 3 Manish @ Sameer Versus Ms. Namrata F.A. No.318/2019 and allured the complainant to take admission with him and received fee of Rs. 50,000/- at Shimla on 01.09.2015. Therefore, the part of the cause of action has arisen to the complainant at Shimla and the District Forum Shimla has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
11. The next submission of the ld. counsel for the appellant is that the ex-parte order dated 11.03.2016 and ex-parte judgment dated 13.08.2019 be set aside.
12. The zimini orders of District Forum below indicate that after proceeding opposite party ex-parte on 11.03.2016, Sh. Om Parkash Sharma Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party in ten hearings i.e. 05.07.2017, 24.08.2017, 21.09.2017. 04.10.2017, 29.12.2017, 10.05.2018, 27.06.2018, 10.08.2018, 12.11.2018 & 02.01.2019 and he has not raised objection pertaining to the point of jurisdiction. Therefore, at this belated stage, the appellant/ opposite party cannot be permitted to take such a vague plea in presence of admission of the respondent himself having taken the amount of Rs.50,000/- for admission. Thus the contents of the complaint remains unrebutted, supported with an affidavit of the complainant.
13. However in para No.3(ii) of the grounds of appeal, the appellant has submitted as under:-
"In this regard it is submitted that the appellant has never came to Shimla at any point of time even she approached the OP/ appellant at Chandigarh in the 4 Manish @ Sameer Versus Ms. Namrata F.A. No.318/2019 month of 10th of August 2015 and deposited fee on 10.08.2015 and thereafter on 01.09.2015 alongwith late fee of RS.1500/- as according to the academy payment mode the second installment has to be deposited within 15 days after the first installment . Also the complainant made an oral request to the cashier to issue a joint receipt for both the payment as she had misplaced the first installment receipt and since it hardly matters for the opposite party and with a view that it would be some way helpful for her a joint receipt amounting to Rs.50,000/- i.e. dated 1.9.2015.
14. In view of the above admission of the appellant with regard to receipt of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent, at Chandigarh, in the ground of appeal, we do not find any infirmities in the order dated13.08.2019 passed by the ld. District Forum below.
15. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant fails and order of ld. District Forum, Shimla dated 13.08.2019 is upheld.
16. Certified copy of this order be sent to District Forum below and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties strictly as per rules. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member 20.05.2022 DKM 5