Complaint Case No.:303 of 2008

Date of Inst: 20.03.2008

Date of Decision:06.01.2010

Smt.Meera Sharma d/o Late Raj Kumar resident of Village and PO Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur through Dr.Bhupinderjit Singh Dhanoa s/o Capt. Avtar Singh r/o 48-L, Model Town, Hoshiarpur.

---Complainant
V E R S U S
M/s Inscol Hospital, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Mr.Daljit Singh, Proprietor INSCOL Company.
---Opposite Party

QUORUM

SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT

SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER



PRESENT: None for complainant

Sh.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

Smt.Meera Sharma has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,86,600/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. The complainant has also prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental harassment besides litigation costs.

2. The present complaint has been filed by Smt.Meera Sharma through her attorney Sh.Dr.Bhupinder Jit Singh Dhanoa who has been duly authorized vide GPA dated 15.01.2008.

3. In brief, the case of the complainant is that OP published an advertisement inviting applications for a degree as well as diploma courses in Nursing from Sunderland University(England). It was also mentioned in the advertisement that the students who qualified the above said courses shall get placement abroad as nurses. Being lured by the advertisement dated 19.08.2004, the complainant approached OP and paid a sum of Rs.1,68,600/- as fees for admission in B.Sc Hons. Nursing Course (vide receipts Annexures C-2 to C-4). According to the complainant, she started her studies, however, there was no required infrastructure for the said courses and even the faculty was not qualified to impart education as mentioned in the advertisement. She studied in OP-Institute for sometime and thereafter she requested OP to satisfy her about the genuineness of the course, by producing some documents about the recognition of the course by any of the universities or Government but OP could not produce any document to satisfy her about the above said facts. Ultimately, she left the course and requested for refund of Rs.1,86,600/- but OP failed to pay the same. It has further been pleaded that that the complainant hired a room for her residence in order to attend the classes and paid a sum of Rs.18000/- as rent and so she is also entitled to the said amount.

It has further been pleaded that earlier she had engaged Sh.G.S.Kang, Advocate for filing the complaint. He issued a notice dated 18.02.2006 to the OP. Sh.G.S.Kang, Advocate also filed a complaint, however, the said complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. The complainant could not trace the number and other particulars of the said complaint despite her best efforts.

In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

4. In the written statement filed by OP, it has been admitted that the complainant got herself registered for the course of B.Sc. Hons. Nursing and she filled a registration form (Annexure OP/1) to this effect. It has also been admitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,86,600/- as fees towards the said course. The case of OP is that the complainant attended classes from 25.10.2004 to 11.12.2004 and thereafter she left the course of her own for some personal reasons. In these circumstances, according to OP, it is not at fault and there is no deficiency in service on its part. It has also been asserted that the course is being provided with the aid of University of Sunderland U.K. and the other classmates of the complainant have completed the course. It has been asserted that there is sufficient infrastructure for providing education to the students and the staff is well qualified and all the allegations to this effect are absolutely false. According to OP, the above said facts have been pleaded simply to make out a lame excuse for discontinuance of the course.

It has further been pleaded that as per the complainant herself, she had filed a complaint earlier and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. So the proper procedure was to get the said complaint restored by filing a proper application. Otherwise, according to OP, the complaint is highly barred by limitation and the same deserves dismissal on this score alone. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc.

6. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant took admission in the B.Sc. Hons. Nursing Course. From the Attendance Sheet (Annexure OP/3), it is apparent that the complainant had attended the classes from 25.10.2004 to 11.12.2004 and thereafter the complainant left her studies and requested for refund of the admission fee but the same was not returned to her. The complainant has failed to mention the date of final refusal of her request for the refund of fees by OP. In these circumstances, the cause of action, if any, accrued to the complainant on 11.12.2004 when she last attended the class.

7. As per the provisions of 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, the complaint can be filed within a period of two years from the date of cause of action. The case of the complainant is that she had filed the complaint earlier also through Sh.G.S.Kang, Advocate. However, neither the affidavit of Sh.G.S.Kang, Advocate has been placed on record nor the particulars of the complaint have been placed on record. So it is not proved that any such complaint was filed earlier by the complainant.

For the sake of arguments, even if it is admitted that the said complaint was filed, the proper course for the complainant was to get the said complaint restored by moving proper application and the complainant could not have filed the second complaint in such circumstances.

8. From the perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that the present complaint was filed on 27.03.2008 i.e. after the expiry of more than three years. The complaint may, however, be entertained beyond the period of two years, if the complainant satisfied the Forum that she had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. The complainant has not come forward with any reason to show that she had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the two years of limitation. So the present complaint, on the face of it is time barred.

9. For the reasons recorded above, finding the complaint to be barred by limitation, the same is hereby dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned.