Arvind Puri & Anr. vs Mrigendra Kumar Dubey & Anr. on 30 December, 2013

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Arvind Puri & Anr. vs Mrigendra Kumar Dubey & Anr. on 30 December, 2013

          CHHATTISGARH STATE
 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
           PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

                                                 Appeal No.FA/13/440
                                              Instituted on : 17.07.2013
1. Arvind Puri,
Address - Institute of Engineers,
Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute,
Kurud Road, Kohka,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri,
Director (Training),
Address - Institute of Engineers,
Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute,
Kurud Road, Kohka,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)                           .... Appellants.

     Vs.

1. Mrigendra Kumar Dubey, S/o L.M. Dubey,
B- 888, Block - 1, Kaveri Vihar,
N.T.P.C. Jamnipali,
Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources),
N.T.P.C.
Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.)          .... Respondents

PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.
Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2.
                                    // 2 //


                                ORDER

Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.04/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 3 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 4 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.). According to Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only the District Forum, Durg has jurisdiction to take cognizance in the complaint and the order passed by the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) is erroneous and is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and complaint be dismissed.

6. Shri Sharad Karke, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 supported the impugned order. He argued that O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant/respondent no.1 at Korba (C.G.) and some cheque was also withdrawn at Korba (C.G.). Office of O.P.No.3, who is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 is situated at Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and the order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned order and does not call for any interference by this Commission.

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in 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 the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 5 //

(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 or 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."

8. In case of Prefex Prakash Air Freight Pvt. Ltd. vs. Widia (India) Ltd. & Anr., III (2003) CPJ 90 (NC), consignments booked at Bangalore. One of them be transported to Mumbai while another to Jamshedpur. Yet another to be transported in Bangalore itself. Complaint filed at Chennai on ground that O.P. Company having Branch Office there. Hon'ble National Commission held that "since no part of cause of action had accrued at Chennai, the District Forum at Chennai did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide complaint on ground of petitioner having a branch office there. "

9. In the instant case the institute of O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.) and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the Diploma Court in the said institute. Merely O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and gave permission for appearing in the examination. No part of cause of action had accrued at Korba (C.G.) and District Forum, Korba (C.G.) did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

// 6 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

10. In the result the appeal is allowed and order passed by the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) is set aside with liberty reserve to the complainant/respondent no.1 to file complaint before the District Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The District Forum, Korba (C.G.) shall return the complaint to the complainant/respondent no.1 immediately for its presentation before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction . The record of the District Forum, be also sent back to District Forum, Korba (C.G.).




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                  // 7 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/441 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Seetaram Patel, S/o K. Patel, B- 1073, Krishna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 8 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.05/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 9 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 10 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

According to Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only the District Forum, Durg has jurisdiction to take cognizance in the complaint and the order passed by the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) is erroneous and is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and complaint be dismissed.

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

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

(d) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 11 //

(e) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(f) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

9. In the instant case the institute of O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.) and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the Diploma Course in the said institute. Merely O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and gave permission for appearing in the examination. No part of cause of action had accrued at Korba (C.G.) and District Forum, Korba (C.G.) did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

// 12 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 13 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/442 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Krishna Kumar Sahu, S/o C.L. Sahu, R/o : B-596, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 14 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.63/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 15 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 16 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

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

(g) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 17 //

(h) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(i) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 18 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                  // 19 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/443 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Kali Mahto, S/o U.N. Mahto, B- 1337, Krishna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 20 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.64/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 21 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 22 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

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

(j) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 23 //

(k) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(l) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 24 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

10. In the result the appeal is allowed and order passed by the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) is set aside with liberty reserve to the complainant/respondent no.1 to file complaint before the District Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The District Forum, Korba (C.G.) shall return the complaint to the complainant/respondent no.1 immediately for its presentation before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction. The record of the District Forum, be also sent back to District Forum, Korba (C.G.).




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 25 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/444 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Tilak Ram Chandrakar, S/o Late S.P. Chandrakar, B- 1936, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 26 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.65/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.70,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 27 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 28 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

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

(m) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 29 //

(n) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(o) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 30 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                  // 31 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/445 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Mahesh Ram, S/o Akil Ram, B - 956, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 32 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.66/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 33 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 34 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

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

(p) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 35 //

(q) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(r) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 36 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 37 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/446 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Bhagwati Charan Banchor, S/o H.R. Banchor, B - 1189, Krishna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 38 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.67/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 39 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 40 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

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

(s) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 41 //

(t) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (u) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 42 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 43 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/447 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Bhuvneshwar Singh, S/o Late Lok Singh, B - 2103, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 44 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.68/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 45 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 46 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

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

(v) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 47 // (w) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(x) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 48 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 49 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/448 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Harcharan Singh Khurana, S/o Late B.S. Khurana, B - 2009, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 50 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.69/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 51 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 52 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (y) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 53 // (z) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (aa) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 54 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 55 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/449 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Basant Kumar Patel, S/o R.N. Patel, B - 633, Block - A, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 56 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.70/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 57 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 58 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (bb) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 59 // (cc) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (dd) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 60 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 61 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/450 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Anil Kumar Sahu, S/o Sewaram Sahu, B - 2093, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 62 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.71/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 63 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 64 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (ee) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 65 // (ff) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (gg) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 66 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 67 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/451 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Ramesh Kumar Saraf, S/o Heeranand Saraf, A.B. - 1369, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 68 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.72/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 69 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 70 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (hh) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 71 //

(ii) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (jj) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 72 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 73 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/452 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Narmada Prasad Chandra, S/o Laxman Singh Chandra, A.B./1531, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 74 // ORDER Dated : 30 /12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.73/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 75 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 76 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (kk) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 77 // (ll) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (mm) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 78 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 79 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/453 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu, S/o Mangal Ram Sahu, B - 1996, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 80 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.74/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 81 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 82 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (nn) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 83 // (oo) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (pp) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 84 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 85 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/454 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Suresh Kumar Shorgile, S/o Domaji Shorgile, A.B /1392, Block 2, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 86 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.75/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 87 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 88 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (qq) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 89 // (rr) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (ss) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 90 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                  // 91 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/455 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Sona Lal Verma, S/o O.R. Verma, B - 2046, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 92 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.76/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 93 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 94 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (tt) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 95 // (uu) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (vv) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 96 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                             (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                        Member
            /12/2013                                       /12/2013
                                 // 97 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/456 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o C. R. Sahu, A - 1669, Krishna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 98 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.77/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 99 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 100 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (ww) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 101 // (xx) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (yy) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 102 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 103 //




          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/457 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Chitra Kumar Chandra, S/o Niranjan Lal Chandra, B - 1954, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 104 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.78/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 105 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 106 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (zz) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 107 // (aaa) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (bbb) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 108 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 109 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/458 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. D.R. Sinha, S/o G.R. Sinha, B - 1966, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 110 // ORDER Dated : 30 /12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.79/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 111 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 112 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (ccc) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 113 // (ddd) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (eee) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 114 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 115 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/459 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Veer Singh Thakur, S/o G. S. Thakur, B - 2054, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 116 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.80/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 117 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 118 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (fff) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 119 // (ggg) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (hhh) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 120 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 121 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/460 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Bihari Lal Verma, S/o Ghanaram Verma, B - 1103, Block - 3, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 122 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.81/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 123 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 124 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

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

(iii) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 125 // (jjj) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (kkk) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 126 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 127 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/461 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Rajendra Kumar Dewangan, S/o Bihari Lal, B - 2109, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 128 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.82/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 129 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 130 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (lll) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 131 // (mmm) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (nnn) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 132 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 133 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/462 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Vishweshwar Prasad Mishra, S/o J.N. Prasad Mishra, B - 1935, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 134 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.83 /2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 135 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 136 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (ooo) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 137 // (ppp) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (qqq) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 138 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 139 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/463 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Pokhraj Kaushik, S/o G.S. Kaushik, B / 2102, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 140 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.84/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 141 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 142 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (rrr) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 143 // (sss) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (ttt) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 144 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 145 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/464 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Heera Lal Kuldeep, S/o Nainsay Kuldeep, A.B / 1639, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 146 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.85/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 147 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 148 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (uuu) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 149 // (vvv) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (www) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 150 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 151 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/465 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Anil Kumar Soni, S/o Gajanand Soni, B / 2094, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 152 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.86/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 153 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 154 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (xxx) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 155 // (yyy) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (zzz) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 156 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 157 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/466 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. A.L Sahu, S/o Bhavsingh Sahu, B / 1901, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 158 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.87/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 159 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 160 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (aaaa) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 161 // (bbbb) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (cccc) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 162 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 163 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/467 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Gorakh Nath Patel, S/o Garjan Prasad Patel, A.B. - 1015, Block - 3, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 164 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.88/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 165 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 166 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (dddd) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 167 // (eeee) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (ffff) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 168 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 169 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/468 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Ashok Kumar Patkar, S/o Late P.R. Patkar, B / 1999, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 170 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.89/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 171 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 172 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (gggg) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 173 // (hhhh) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (iiii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 174 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 175 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/469 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Aditya Kumar Ghoshal, S/o C.G. Ghoshal, B - 642, Block - 2, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 176 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.90/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 177 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 178 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (jjjj) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 179 // (kkkk) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (llll) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 180 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 181 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/470 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Demlal Chandrakar, S/o Rikhi Ram Chandrakar, B - 2098, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 182 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.91/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 183 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 184 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (mmmm) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 185 // (nnnn) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (oooo) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 186 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 187 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/471 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Pradeep Kumar Sahu, S/o J.L. Sahu, B - 1972, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 188 // ORDER Dated : 30 /12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.92/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.60,000/- . Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & // 189 // 2 committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 190 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (pppp) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 191 // (qqqq) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (rrrr) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 192 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 193 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/472 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Manoj Kumar Verma, S/o T.R. Verma, B / 2178, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 194 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.93/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.60,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 195 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 196 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (ssss) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 197 // (tttt) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (uuuu) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 198 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 199 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/473 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Nagendra Singh Bharadwaj, S/o D.D.S. Bharadwaj, B/1352, Krishna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 200 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.94/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 201 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 202 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (vvvv) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 203 // (wwww) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (xxxx) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 204 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 205 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/474 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Shiv Kumar Sahu, S/o B.R. Sahu, B / 1975, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 206 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.95/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 207 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 208 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (yyyy) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 209 // (zzzz) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (aaaaa) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 210 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 211 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/475 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Ben Singh Avalya, S/o Peeru Lal Avalya, A / 1018, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 212 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.96/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.70,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 213 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 214 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (bbbbb) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 215 // (ccccc) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (ddddd) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 216 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 217 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/476 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. T. Rajan, S/o T.n. Ninan, B - 611, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 218 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.97/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 219 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 220 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (eeeee) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 221 // (fffff) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (ggggg) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 222 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 223 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/477 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Parmeshwar Singh Kaiwart, S/o Mohit Ram Kaiwart, A.B. - 579 - 81, Yamuna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 224 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.98/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 225 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 226 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (hhhhh) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 227 // (iiiii) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (jjjjj) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 228 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.





  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 229 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/478 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Narendra Kumar Tiwari, S/o P.C. Tiwari, B - 899, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 230 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.99/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is mentioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 231 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 232 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (kkkkk) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 233 // (lllll) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (mmmmm) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 234 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013
                                 // 235 //


          CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/13/479 Instituted on : 17.07.2013

1. Arvind Puri, Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Satish Puri, Director (Training), Address - Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Appellants.

Vs.

1. Kailash Kumar Gawel, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Gawl, B / 2020, Narmada Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

2. Additional General Manager (Human Resources), N.T.P.C. Tehsil - Katghora District Korba (C.G.) .... Respondents PRESENT: -

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES -

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Sharad Karke, for respondent no.1.

None for respondent no.2.

// 236 // ORDER Dated : 30/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.03/2012, whereby the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.Nos.1 & 2, has been rejected by the District Forum.

2. In brief, the facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum are that the complainant, is an employee of O.P.No.3. O.P.No.1 contacted the complainant. On being assurance given by the O.P.No.1, the complainant obtained permission from O.P.No.3 and has taken admission in the appellant's institute, Institute of Engineers, Directorate, Puri Engineering & Technical Institute, Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complainant appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 sent report card to the complainant, in which it is m0entioned that complainant had failed in the examination. O.P.no.2 sent mark sheet to the complainant. Then the complainant got information that the institute of O.P.No.1 & 2, is not affiliated with Indira Gandhi Open University and without getting affiliation, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 admitted the complainant and received fees of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 // 237 // committed deficiency in service, therefore complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Korba (C.G.).

3. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants herein filed Preliminary Objection before the District Forum, that the District Forum, Korba (C.G.), has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.

4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2013 rejected the objection taken by the appellants holding that O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of the complainant/respondent no.1 and office of O.P.No.3/respondent no.2, is situated at District Korba (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence this appeal.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1 & 2/appellants argued that the institute of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai and O.P.No.3/respondent no.2 is employer of complainant/respondent no.1, who only permitted the complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants and the complainant/respondent no.1 appeared in the examination conducted by the O.P.No.2. Office of the appellants is situated at Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.). There is no branch of the appellants at Korba (C.G.). Merely O.P.No.3/respondent, as employer of the complainant/respondent no.1, gave permission to the // 238 // complainant/respondent no.1 to take admission in the institute of the appellants. District Forum, Korba (C.G.) has no jurisdiction. He further argued that no cause of action arose at Korba (C.G.).

7. Sub section 2 of Section 11 runs as follows :-

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (nnnnn) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or // 239 // (ooooo) 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 or business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (ppppp) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

// 240 // Therefore, the learned District Forum, Korba (C.G.) erred in holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint case. The order of the District Forum, suffers from jurisdictional error & illegality, therefore, is liable to be set aside.




  (Justice R.S.Sharma)                            (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
       President                                       Member
            /12/2013                                      /12/2013

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Arvind Puri & Anr. vs Mrigendra Kumar Dubey & Anr. on 30 December, 2013