State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
J.Papa Rao Hyderabad vs Gsl Medical College And Others ... on 27 April, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD F.A.No.1321 OF 2006 AGAINST C.C.NO.367 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD Between J.Papa Rao S/o Ramulu Age 50 years, Occ: Service R/o Plot No.39, Satyanarayana Nagar Colony, Gudimalkapur Hyderabad-500 028 Appellant/complainant A N D 1. The Dean GSL Medical College NH-5, Lakshmipuram Rajahmundry 533 294 2. The Registrar Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences Vijayawada 3. The Registrar Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences Camp Office: Compound of DMEH Office Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant Sri J.Papa Rao(PIP) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Mrs T.V.Sridevi Counsel for the Respondents No.2&3 Served QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
& R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER MONDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND NINE Oral Order ( As per Sri Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) *** This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful complainants in C.C.No.367 of 2006.
The factual matrix that led to the filing of the complaint is that the appellant is the father of Ms J.Haritha a medical student in respondent no.1 college. The respondent no.1 informed the appellant that his daughter was provisionally passed in first year MBBS examination held in September/October 2004. They had informed that the daughter of the appellant had to pay Rs.5,000/- towards stipend fees, Rs.3,400/- towards student common need fund and hostel fees of Rs.40,000/- for prosecuting her second year MBBS course and accordingly the appellant had paid the amount on 12.12.2004. The said fee was collected in violation of the government order. A One Man Enquiry Committee appointed to enquire into the complaint lodged by the appellant against the respondent no.1, submitted its report, prima facie finding fault with the respondent in regard to the collection of hostel fees and mess charges against the government order. The respondent no.2 had not taken any action against the respondent no.1 for violation of government orders. The respondent no.1 had been harassing the students which was brought to the notice of High Court by the appellant by way of Writ Petition NO.18118 of 2005 and the High Court directed the respondent no.2 to take action against the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 further demanded an amount of Rs.15,640/- towards hostel fee which was not mentioned in their notice dated 10.11.2005.
The respondent no.1 filed counter stating that the District Forum-II, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction as no transactions mentioned in the complaint were taken place within its jurisdiction. The respondent no.1 college was situated at Rajahmundry and the respondent no.2 office at Vijayawada and the respondent no.3 was impleaded only in order to maintain the complaint. No transaction was taken place at respondent no.3 office it was submitted that the appellant had already approached High Court and mischievously approached the District Forum. It was stated that in spite of notices issued several times calling upon the daughter of the appellant to pay the amount due and also grace period was also allowed enabling her to pay the amount due. The daughter of the appellant failed to pay the amount due hence she was instructed to vacate the hostel. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint directing the appellant to pay exemplary costs of Rs.3,000/-.
Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant had preferred this appeal on the ground tat the District Forum failed to consider legal principles in appreciation of evidence and the issue of territorial jurisdiction.
The points for consideration are
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether the appellant is entitled to any relief?
3) To what relief?
POINT NO1: Admission of the appellants daughter Ms Haritha in the respondent no.1 college for the purpose of prosecuting MBBS course in the year 2004 and completion of first year of that course by Haritha is not in dispute. Payment of an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards hostel fees is also not in dispute. It is also admitted fact that as per the instructions of the respondent no.1 college the daughter of the appellant vacated the hostel as is evident from Ex.B3, letter dated 8.4.2006 issued by her to the Warden of respondent no. 1 college. However before entering into the issue of deficiency in service it is to be seen whether the complaint is maintainable before the District Forum-II, Hyderabad.
The respondent no.1 college is situated at Rajahmundry and the respondent no.2 office at Viajayawada.
Respondent no.3 is only a camp office of respondent no.2. Admittedly no cause of action has occurred in Hyderabad District within the jurisdiction of the District forum II , Hyderabad. A specific plea as to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the District forum was taken in their counter of the respondent no.1. The appellant had also not filed a power of attorney or authorization from his daughter Haritha as all the receipts were issued in her name. At least her affidavit could have been filed. All these aspects conclusively establish that the District Forum-II had no territorial jurisdiction and in the absence of any authorization of power of attorney from the person in whose name the receipts were issued by the respondent no.1 college and also who is a major, the complaint is not maintainable.
POINT NO.2: As discussed above, point no.1 was decided against the appellant, we need not determine whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2. However in view of the circumstances of the case, as the appellant has been conducting his case in person, we are inclined to provide an opportunity to the appellant to file the complaint in proper forum. The costs of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the District Forum is set aside.
In the result the appeal is disposed of directing the appellant to approach proper forum by submitting the complaint in accordance with the law. The costs of Rs.3,000/-
awarded by the District Forum is set aside.
PRESIDINT MEMBER MEMBER DT. 27.04.2009