H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

----

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NO.05/2003.

DATE OF DECISION: 14.7.2009.



In the matter of:



Shri Saurabh Shukla son of Shri Avay Shukla, Permanent Resident of House No.2, Brokhurst, Chhota Shimla, Shimla-171002, temporarily residing at No.14, 2nd Floor, 5th Cross Street Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

… … Complainant.



Versus



1. College of Computing and Applied Software Engineer

(Attention: Dr. Paramjit Singh, Dean and Professor), Rai Foundation, A-41, MCIE, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.



2. Rai Foundation, A-41, MCIE, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.

3. Board of Trustee, Rai Foundation, through the Chairman Shri Vinay Rai, A-41, MCIE, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.

… … Opposite Prties.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? Yes



For the Complainant: Mr. Arjun Lal, Advocate with

Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



O R D E R





Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).





1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also examined the record of the complaint file in the light of the order passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.2197 of 2004 on 20.11.2008. While disposing of the said revision petition, it was directed that we should treat the issue of territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue and decide the same before taking up other issues.



2. M.A. No.548/2004 was filed by the Opposite parties for rejection of the complaint, as according to them the complaint was not maintainable before this Commission at Shimla for want of territorial jurisdiction. Great emphasis was laid on behalf of the opposite parties on Section 17(2)(b) and (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.



3. This stand of the opposite parties was seriously contested on behalf of the complainant and according to the learned Counsel this complaint was maintainable before this Commission, and it has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain as well as adjudicate upon the same and stand of the opposite parties to the contrary needs to be rejected.



4. Before dealing with the submissions urged on behalf of the parties, facts relevant for deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction need to be briefly noted. As per averments made in the complaint, complainant was provided with literature relating to the Course, College as well as of the Rai Foundation. Copy of this literature is Annexure C.2/A and C.2/B. Besides this, further according to the complainant, specific assurance was held out in the offer of admission dated 4.7.2002 by the College, as well as Rai Foundation including its Board of Trustees, that the Course that was being offered would lead to the award of a B.Sc. (Hon), Computing Studies degree of University of Northumbria, U.K. A news item in that behalf was also issued by the opposite parties per him. It was on this holding out by the opposite parties, that the complainant deposited Rs.60,375/-, besides having spent Rs.15,000/-. After having got admission, it transpired that the said University of U.K. was not going to issue the degree. Complainant and his father met with Dr. Paramjit Singh, Dean and Professor of the College who, also confirmed that affiliation with the said University was not forthcoming. This resulted in filing of the complaint wherein compensation of Rs.20,85,375/- was claimed.





5. While contesting and resisting the claim of complainant, opposite parties pleaded that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, as the complainant was not a consumer under them, and also their offices were situate at Delhi. Further according to them it is the residence of the opposite parties, and not of the complainant which determines the territorial jurisdiction of Consumer Redressal Agency under the Act. Opposite parties also pleaded that the complainant was residing at Chennai (Madras) as is evident from the affidavit attached with the complaint. Therefore, none of the parties were





residing and working within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.



6. In the aforesaid background as well as from the memorandum of parties, it is evident that College wherein complainant got admission is at New Delhi. Rai Foundation who is running the College-opposite party No.1 has also its office at New Delhi. Board of Trustees i.e. opposite party No.3 sued through its Chairman, has office at Delhi. As far as Press releases and news items having been published are concerned, suffice it to say in this behalf that it is only an invitation of offer. In response to it, complainant obtained admission at Delhi. It is not his case that in response to either Annexures C.2/A and C.2/B or offer made by him seeking admission to College-OP.1 he received any communication conveying acceptance of the said offer by the opposite parties at Shimla. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no part of cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Though learned Counsel for the complainant forcefully urged that his client after going through the newspapers and press releases at Shimla, where he also got literature Annexure C.2/A and C.2/B, that he had got admission with opposite party No.1. This argument according to us has no substance. Reason being that there is no press release/newspaper cutting placed on record with the complaint which may support his plea. In these circumstances, and looking to the averments made in the complaint, we are of the confirmed view that the complainant obtained admission in the college-opposite party No.1 being managed by opposite parties 2 & 3 at Delhi. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then the decision of this case need not detain us.



7. We may also observe in this behalf that if from the facts based on record it is established that a part of cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, then in accordance with Section 17(2) (c) of the Act, this Commission will certainly have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Again, there is no material placed on record by the complainant to that effect.



8. We clarify that keeping in view the directions of the National Commission, we have only dealt with the question of territorial jurisdiction.



9. No other point was urged.





In view of the aforesaid discussion, objection raised by the opposite parties is upheld and as a result of it, M.A. No.548/2004 is allowed and thereby it is held that this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly it is ordered that the office shall return the complaint to the complainant through his learned Counsel for being presented before appropriate Forum in accordance with law.



Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.



Shimla,

July 14, 2009.



( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.)

President





( Saroj Sharma )

Member





/BS/ ( Chander Shekhar Sharma )

Member.