Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/288

Dharminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

7SEA Education Consultant - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Sandhar Adv.

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 288 of 29.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   06.06.2016

 

Dharminder Singh aged about 28 years son of S.Balbir Singh, resident of village and Post Office Pamali, Police Station Mullanpur Dakha, District Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.7Sea Education Consultant, Office No.7, Lower Ground Floor, Madhok Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Manager/Partner.

2.Gurpreet Singh Chauhan son of S.Bhupinder Singh Chauhan, Managing Director of7Sea Education Consultant, Office No.7, Lower Ground Floor, Madhok Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

Second Address:

Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt.

3.Richa Daughter of Late Shri Prem Nath, Manager/Partner of 7Sea Education Consultant, Office No.7, Lower Ground Floor, Madhok Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

Second Address:

V.P.O.Baring, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.G.S.Sandher, Advocate     

For OP1                         :        Complaint already dismissed as withdrawn vide

                                               order dated 21.09.2015.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Ex-parte.

 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.             Complainant after completing his study was doing the course of IELTS in 2012 and  was interested to visit Canada for the purpose of higher study on the basis of study visa. OP2 is the Managing Director of OP1. OPs are service providers for getting education from abroad. OP2 and OP3 opened their office under the name and style of 7SEA Education Consultant at Office No.7, Lower Ground Floor, Madhok Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. In October, 2012, the complainant along with his father Sh.Balbir Singh visited the office of OPs for consulting them for study visa for Canada. OP2 and OP3 assured the complainant and his father that they will arrange for study visa for the complainant. Complainant was disclosed that he has to pay Rs.4,21,000/- as tuition fee for one year except the service charges.   OP2 and OP3 took the entire documents consisting of copies of passport, educational certificates etc from the complainant. OP3 received a sum of Rs.10,000/- in advance against receipt dated 13.10.2012. After receipt of this amount, offer letter dated 26.11.2012 from London School of Business and Finance, Toronto, Canada in the name of the complainant was provided by the OPs. Thereafter, Ops called upon the complainant to deposit the tuition fee of Rs.4,21,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant along with his brother namely Sh.Varinder Singh, visited the office of OPs on 11.01.2013 and deposited the demand draft of 3750 Canadian Dollars and cheque No.600702 dated 11.1.2012 of amount of Rs.2,10,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Phullawal, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. That cheque was issued from the account of father of the complainant. Op2 and OP3 after receipt of above mentioned demand draft and cheque, issued receipt dated 11.1.2013. Complainant was disclosed as if he will have to show an FDR of minimum of Rs.9 lac, so as to show he can meet the expenses of study. For getting the FDR, OP2 and OP3 contacted  the  Manager  of Punjab & Sind Bank, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana. A loan of Rs.8,40,000/- was got sanctioned therefrom, but Rs.95,000/- was paid by the father of the complainant as margin money. FDR of amount of Rs.9,35,000/- in the name of complainant was got prepared. Besides, a sum of Rs.1 lac was charged by the OPs as interest for payment to the bank. Ops provided letter of acceptance dated 7.3.2013 in the name of complainant as issued by London School of Business and Finance. Complainant under assurance of Ops paid huge amount to OP2 and OP3 on different dates and modes. Complainant was asked to receive letter dated 1.5.2013 from the Immigration Department of Canada, through which, it was informed that letter of acceptance of complainant is not valid. Owing to issue of invalid offer letter and letter of acceptance and furnishing of false information by the Ops, the entire process of immigration stood rejected/stopped. Thereafter, complainant along with his father visited office of OPs number of times for requesting them to refund the amount, but to no effect. OPs did not provide any services for refund of 3750 Canadian Dollars from London School of Business and Finance, despite the fact that they are bound to provide such services as per agreement. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, directions sought against OPs to return back the amount of Rs.4,15,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,10,000/- + Rs.95,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-. Even return of 3750 Canadian Dollars and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for mental frustration and harassment claimed. A criminal case based on registered FIR No.117 dated 12.11.2014 at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana, is pending qua subject matter in question and except that no other case is pending. Litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- even claimed.

2.                Complaint against OP1 was withdrawn because of sufferance of statement of such withdraw by counsel for the complainant. This withdrawal    of complaint against OP1 was on the ground that office of OP1 was lying closed. OP2 and OP3 did not appear, despite service through publication in newspaper ‘Daily Ajit, Jalandhar’and as such, Op2 and OP3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.1.2016.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence affidavit of his father namely Sh.Balbir Singh as Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and thereafter, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PB and then closed the evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                During the course of oral arguments, counsel for the complainant was required to submit the details of amount deposited by him and he submitted the same.

6.                Contents of affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.PB of complainant and his father along with receipts Ex.C1, Ex.C3, Ex.C4 and Ex.C6 establishes that an amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited in cash in the name of the complainant with Ops on 13.10.2012, whereas, an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- through cheque No.600702 was deposited on 11.01.2013. However, contents of Ex.C6 discloses as if FDR of Rs.9,35,000/- in the name of complainant with account No.428091 was got issued from Punjab & Sind Bank, New Janta Nagar Branch, Ludhiana. This FDR of Rs.9,35,000/- was retained as security. Rs.8,40,000/- was sanctioned as loan, but Rs.95,000/- was deposited in the name of complainant by his family members for getting this FDR of Rs.9,35,000/- issued in the name of complainant. Interest @9.75% p.a. with monthly rest was to accrue on this FDR. As this FDR was issued in the name of the complainant and as such, the accrued interest was to be credited in the account of the complainant. So, OPs were not to gain anything from this security of FDR of Rs.9,35,000/-. Being so, it cannot be held that Rs.95,000/- invested for getting of FDR in question issued as security was to be retained by the Ops. If this amount of Rs.95,000/- as margin money was invested in the FDR in the name of OPs as disclosed by contents of Ex.C6, then certainly, Ops cannot be held liable for refund of the margin amount of Rs.95,000/-. So, claim of the complainant qua refund of this amount of Rs.95,000/- is unsustainable  because the complainant to remain beneficiary of this margin amount of Rs.95,000/- along with interest accrued on FDR of Rs.9,35,000/-.

7.                However, amount of Rs.10,000/- through receipt Ex.C1 and of Rs.2,10,000/- through receipt Ex.C3 given in hands of OPs and as such,         they are liable to account for the same. Through written details of the paid      and received back amount submitted by counsel for the complainant, it is disclosed as if amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been returned back to the complainant in pursuance of the orders of Hon’ble High Court, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C12. It is admitted in Para no.11 of affidavit Ex.PB of complainant that he has received back demand draft of 3390 Canadian Dollars from Business School of London, but Rs.2,10,000/- through demand draft from Ops as per order dated 24.09.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C12. Ex.C13 is the copy of passbook entries showing refund of these amounts in the account of father of the complainant namely Sh.Balbir Singh. However, it is claimed that still amount of Rs.2,05,000/- + 360 Canadian Dollars remains to be recovered by the complainant from Ops.

8.                Out of the balance worked out amount of Rs.2,05,000/-, Rs.95,000/- paid as margin amount still stands in the credit of the complainant owing to issue of FDR of Rs.9,35,000/- in his name and as such, amount of Rs.95,000/- is not liable to be paid by the Ops to the complainant. Likewise, amount of Rs.1 lac alleged to be paid to the bank as interest is not claimable by the complainant from the OPs because the purpose of charging of this interest amount of Rs.1 lac is not disclosed. No certificate of bank produced to show that actually Rs.1 lac was charged by the Ops on behalf of the bank. So, plea taken in para no.6 of the complaint is improper and not acceptable that Rs.1 lac charged by the OPs as interest to pay to the bank. If receipts like Ex. C1, Ex.C3, Ex.C4 and Ex.C6 obtained by the complainant from OPs qua the amounts charged by them, then such receipts of charging of interest of Rs.1 lac too would have been obtained by the complainant from OPs. However, no such receipt of charging of Rs.1 lac as interest obtained by the complainant from Ops and as such, false plea qua charging of interest of Rs. 1 lac by OPs for paying to the bank virtually has been taken. So, OPs  not liable to pay Rs.1 lac, the   alleged collected amount of interest by the OPs.

9.                Refund of amount of Rs.10,000/- charged through receipt Ex.C1 has not taken place in favour of the complainant till date, and as such, complainant entitled to this amount of Rs.10,000/-. As FIR was lodged against the OPs, due to which, order Ex.C12 was passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for directing the OPs to handover the bank draft of Rs.2,10,000/- in the name of the complainant and as such, it is obvious that virtually, OPs cheated  the complainant prima-facie resulting in registration     of FIR. So, retention of amount of Rs.10,000/- paid through receipt Ex.C1 amounts to deficiency in service and even adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

10.              Receipt of 3750 Canadian Dollars by the OPs from the complainant is proved through receipts Ex.C4, Ex.C5, Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. Out of that 3390 Canadian Dollars alone has been returned and as such, due to non return of the balance 360 Canadian Dollars, Ops have adopted an unfair trade practice. Complainant had to suffer lot of mental tension and harassment, owing to non return of the amount and that is why, he has to bear expenses on litigation and as such, amount of Rs.20,000/- should be allowed for mental harassment along with return of the amount of Rs.10,000/- and 360 Canadian Dollars or its equivalent price in Indian Currency as on today. These amounts should be ordered to be returned along    with interest @8% per annum from the date of complaint namely 29.04.2015 till payment, so that complainant may be duly compensated for the sustained loss at the hands of Ops.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed partly against Op2 and OP3 by directing them to return the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- and 360 Canadian Dollars or its equivalent price in Indian Currency as on today along with interest @8% per annum from the date of complaint namely 29.04.2015 till payment, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP2 and OP3. These payments be also made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                                            

                      (Babita)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.06.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.