Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 18-11-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly in C.C. No. 22/2015.
Case of the Complainant, in a short compass, is that, his son took admission in the OP Institution to pursue a course in computer science, namely, “DOT NET”. At the time of admission, the OP No. 1 promised to arrange for a suitable placement for his son on successful completion of the said course. The Complainant paid requisite money to the OPs on different dates as per their demand. Lastly, the OP No. 1 visited Complainant’s house to collect Rs. 7,000/ from him. Allegedly, the OPs with an ulterior motive, demanded hefty amount from the Complainant, which was beyond his ways and means. As such, his son had to give up said course abruptly. The Complainant though demanded refund of the deposited sum from the OPs, they did not oblige him; hence, the complaint.
Appearing to defend their case, it is contended by the OPs that none of the incidents took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. It has been admitted by the Complainant himself that after learning from his friends about the OPs, the Complainant visited the OP No. 2 institution situated in Kolkata. It is stated that none of the OPs actually and voluntarily resides and/or personally works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. The OPs vehemently disputed that they visited the house of the Complainant for the purpose of collection of fees and stated that all the remittances related to the said course had been deposited by the Complainant/his son at the office of the OP No. 2 in Kolkata.
Decision with reasons
Heard the Ld. Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the Appellant and perused the material on record carefully.
The instant complaint was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. On due consideration of the material on record, the Ld. District Forum found that the Appellant failed to furnish cogent documentary proof/evidence in support of his contention that cause of action of the complaint, either partly or wholly, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum and based on such findings, the complaint was dismissed.
We afraid, our intense scrutiny of the material on record too evoke similar finding.
It is though claimed by the Appellant that the Respondent No. 1 visited his house to collect fees, on due consideration, it appears to be an absurd proposition. It is hardly believable that for the purpose of collecting fees, that too for a meagre sum of Rs. 7,000/-, an educational institution to the stature of the Respondents would depute its official to the residence of a student situated in a far-away place from the office of the Respondents.
It is a fact that after the Respondents disputed the claim of the Appellant that they collected Rs. 7,000/- from the residence of the Appellant, by filing a counter objection, the Appellant claimed that besides the said sum of Rs. 7,000/-, on earlier occasions too the Respondents visited his house for similar purpose. However, the Appellant did not establish such fact by adducing any tangible proof in support such contention.
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Respondents indeed sent their official to the Appellant’s house, in that case, it is naïve to believe that as a routine matter, they send their officials to the residences of other students as well. Interestingly, the Appellant did not furnish any affidavit from the side of any other student/his father confirming such fact.
Another allegation against the Respondents so made by the Appellant is that the Respondents forced the Appellant to cough up huge amount of money for the sake of ensuring placement of his son, curious enough, if the material on record is anything to go by, the Appellant did not lodge any official complaint with the Respondents in this regard, let alone lodging any police complaint.
In fact, what we found quite baffling is that the Appellant has not furnished any documentary proof to show that the Respondents demanded/received even a single farthing extra than what was mentioned in their prospectus.
For all these reasons, the instant Appeal appears to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, we see no coherent reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The Appeal, thus, fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondents without any costs. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.