DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 319 of 17.8.2017
Decided on: 21.9.2018
Gaurav Dhiman s/o Raj Kumar # 243, Street No.7 Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Amarpreet Singh
2. Vikas Mehta both Proprietors/Partners M/s Career Overseas (Now Argus Group, Near Amar Ashram Patiala) Now office address: SCO No.29, First Floor, Leela Bhawan, Near Vishal Mega Mart, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
ARGUED BY
Sh.Rajiv Lohatbadi, Advocate counsel for complainant.
Sarvshri Amarpreet Singh & Vikas Mehta¸Prop.
of OPs No.1&2 in person.
ORDER
SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT
- This is the complaint filed by Sh.Gaurav Dhiman, (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Amarpreet Singh & Anr.(hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he was an engineer diploma holder. He approached both the OPs for study in foreign country as they advertized that their firm is providing service in the field of immigration and visit for Singapore study visa. The complainant approached OPs for the purpose of study visa in Singapore. OPs promised that they will get study visa for nine months study course in 5200$ i.e. almost Rs.2,49,000/- They agreed in 5200$ i.e. almost Rs.2,49,000/-,but OPs charged Rs.3,60,000/- including all their commission from college as franchise in India.
That on the assurance of the OPs, complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- in their account through NEFT on 9.8.2016 for booking his seat under Standard PEI student contract between STEi institute. Thereafter the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- on 23.9.2016 vide cheque No.597805 as full and final payment, in the account of the OPs. Thereafter written agreement was signed on 26.9.2016. The OPs assured that complainant will depart for Singapore before 17.10.2016. But the OP no.2 charged further Rs.10,000/- on the plea of legal process. As per complainant when he reached at Singapore for joining his certificate in Food and Beverage Operation Course, he investigated college student fee i.e. 3424 Singapore $, which is equal to Rs.1,66,000/-. Thereafter the complainant approached OPs for detail of the expenses and college fee but the OPs failed to give detail of 5200 $ i.e. Rs.2,49,000/- and have charged Rs.3,60,000/-. There is also concession and commission from college when the complainant got admission through OPs. The OPs failed to give details and have charged unaccounted amount of Rs.1,94,000/-from the complainant. The complainant approached his father to pursue the matter with the OPs. He also met with the OPs on 8.11.2016 but the OPs failed to give account detail.
On this background of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP.It is further pleaded that the complainant got issued legal notice but to no response.
By this complaint, complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.1,94,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum, Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc., Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply. In reply, the OPs have raised preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct to file the complaint. He was fully satisfied with the services rendered by the OPs. There is no question of any deficiency in service. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed true and material facts. The OPs have revealed the true facts as under:
That the OPs are authorized from Punjab Govt. with license and certificate for Study Visa consultancy. They had got issued study visa to the complainant on the agreed amount of Rs.3,60,000/- for study visa, college fee, funds management and commission fee. No amount was charged in excess. All the transactions were done online banking. The OPs transferred amount of Rs.2,10,000/- ( Rs.10,000/- on 23.8.2016, + Rs.2,00,000/- on 23.9.2016) in favour of Kunwar Sehdev, Prop. of West Way Overseas, Vikas Vihar, Prem Nagar, Ambala, for obtaining visa, college fee and job training permit . A sum of Rs.30,000/- as commission was paid in cash to Jitesh Jolly, who is relative of the complainant and has brought the complainant to the OPs. This fact is also mentioned in the police report obtained by the OPs against the application moved by the complainant before SSP, Patiala, which was also found baseless and false. A sum of Rs.60,000/- each as commission fee of the OPs was settled with the complainant. In this way, no excess amount was charged by the OPs. The complainant has also filed false complaint to the SSP, Patiala and Economic cell, Patiala, which was found false and absolutely no action has been taken by the police. Major part of the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was transferred by the complainant without any fear and coercion when the complainant got his visa from OPs with his entire satisfaction. There is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
The further legal objections are that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.The complaint of the complainant moved to the police had already failed. That the complainant has no cause of action and the complaint is totally false, baseless and vexatious to the knowledge of the OPs.
On merits, it is admitted that the OPs got issued study visa. It is admitted that the OPs charged Rs.3,60,000/- but never charged 5200 Singapore $. It is also reiterated that the OPs have got issued Singapore visa to the complainant on the agreed amount. In further reply, the OPs reiterated their stand as taken in the preliminary objections and denied all the averments of the complainant. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, affidavit of Mr.Jolly, Ex.CB, copies of statement of account, Ex.C1,C2, copy of contract, Ex.C3, copy of installment schedule, Ex.C4,copy of payment voucher, Ex.C5, copy of student Escrow confirmation, Ex.C6, copy of receipt, Ex.C7, copy of legal notice, Ex.C8, copy of postal receipts, Ex.C9, copy of voucher, Ex.C10,C11.
6. The OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Amarpreet Singh, Ex.OPA, affidavit of Vikas Mehta, Ex.OPB, copy of agreement, Ex.OP1, copy of statement of account, Ex.OP2, copy of letter, Ex.OP3, copy of letter, Ex.OP4, copy of mail,Ex.OP5, copy of contract, Ex.OP6.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. It is pointed out by the ld. counsel for the complainant that admittedly the OPs have charged Rs.3,60,000/-. 5200$ have been charged as fee.
9. In reply the OPs have rather pleaded that they have charged Rs.3,60,000/- for study visa, college fee, fund management and commission fee. It is also revealed that Rs.30,000/-were paid to Jitesh Jolly, who is relative of the complainant. No fund management was involved in the matter. The OPs were also not supposed to charge for commission. Payment of alleged commission to relative of the complainant also amounts to unfair trade practice. Moreover complainant has produced on record affidavit, Ex.CB of Mr.Jolly. He has deposed on oath that no amount was received by him from the OPs. No documentary evidence has been produced by the OPs to prove payment of Rs.30,000/- to Mr.Jolly. The OPs adopted unfair trade practice and have charged excess amount.Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs after reiterating their version as taken in the written reply have submitted that the complaint is totally abuse of process of law. The complainant in his complaint has himself admitted that the OPs charged sum of Rs.3,60,000/- including all their commission from college as franchise in India. It is not the case of the complainant that OPs charged separate amounts under separate heads or for separate functions. The complainant has also produced on record copy of the agreement,Ex.C3, installment schedule, Ex.C4. Installment schedule proves first installment of Rs.3424$.Ex.C5 further shows student fee payable is 3424 $. These documents are signed by the complainant himself. Nothing was concealed from the complainant. Now the complainant has taken false pleas that the OPs have charged 5200$ as student fee. This averment is against the documentary evidence relied upon by the complainant himself. The complainant cannot allege any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice only for the reason that the OPs used to pay commission to 3rd party. When the complainant has admittedly settled all the job work for Rs.3,60,000/- and the OPs have received this amount as per agreement, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the OPs.
11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
12. As per complainant himself, the complainant paid Rs.3,60,000/-. All the amounts were received by the OPs through bank accounts. Complainant has alleged that the OPs have charged 5200$ on the pretext of student fee. Complainant has relied upon agreement, Ex.C3. Installment schedule is part of this agreement. The number of installment is only one and the first installment is 3424$.Due date is 20.10.2016.The complainant has signed this document on 26.9.2016.This document proves that the complainant was made aware of the fact that 3424$ is to be paid for study purpose. Ex.C5 reveals the applicable period 20.10.2016 to 27.1.2017. Ex.C6 is the Student Escrow Confirmation. It is also signed by the complainant. It also shows payment amount 3424$. Official receipt Ex.C7 proves payment of 2609$ and outstanding balance 815$. All these documents show that the complainant was aware of the fact that study fee is 3424$.The complainant has alleged that the OPs charged 5200$ on account of study fee, but no documentary evidence is brought on record to support this averment.
It is well settled that documentary evidence has to prevail on oral evidence. The documentary evidence proves that 3424$ was settled as study fee.
Complainant has also tried to allege unfair trade practice on the ground that the OPs have allegedly paid Rs.30,000/- as commission to Mr.Jolly. When the complainant has paid the settled amount with the OPs, he cannot allege unfair trade practice only for the reason that the OPs have claimed payment of some amount to Mr.Jolly or any other person.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is without merit and stands dismissed. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:21.9.2018
Kanwaljeet Singh Neelam Gupta M. P. Singh Pahwa
Member Member President
