STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(First Appeal No.396 of 2010)

1.            Abhishek Sharma s/o Shri Satish Sharma #5404/2, Modern Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

2.            Shri Satish Sharma s/o Late Pt. Sardari Lal Sharma, #5404/2, Modern Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

3.            Smt. Chander Prabha Sharma w/o Shri Satish Sharma #5404/2, Modern Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

……Appellants

V e r s u s

Authorised Officer, Orion Consultancy and Coaching Services (OCCS), SCO 61, First Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh 160002.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Adv. for the appellants.

                   Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Adv. for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.9.2010, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants/appellants.

2.                      The facts, in brief, are that the complainant No.1 after completing 10+2 in 2008 approached the OP to seek expert opinion on the procedure for study and working abroad.  Upon their advice, he opted to join the course in Hotel & Catering Management at GMIT University, Galway, Ireland and entered into a contract with the OP who was to provide him assistance to get the admission as well as visa. He paid Rs.25,000/- to the OP for their services. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 21.6.2008. As per the complainant, all services to be provided by the OP were mentioned in the agreement but when he went to U.K., he found that there was no free airport pick-up and no vegetarian food available for him and he had to live the entire period of his brief stay in Ireland on water.  As the complainant could not adjust at the University he, therefore, left Ireland and came back to India.  Thereafter, he approached the OP to get his money refunded from the University.  He alleged that though the OP received the entire amount from the University but they never refunded it to him. When his grievance was not redressed, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                      In their written reply, the OP submitted that the complainant approached them on 21.6.2008 and showed interest to study in Ireland. The complainant himself chose to stay in EBI College, Ireland and on his request, the OP got his seat reserved in the selected college and a letter of Conditional Offer dated 30.6.2008 was given to him.  It was stated that he himself refused the airport pickup facility in writing because he had his friend in that country.  It was denied that he could not find any vegetarian food and lived the entire stay only on water or that no guidance was given to him.  It was averred that he could not settle in GMIT University and remained there for three days only whereafter he returned to India with the excuse of his cousin’s sickness. It was admitted that complainant approached the OP for refund of the fee paid to the University and after numerous correspondence with the University, they agreed to refund the fee paid by him after necessary deductions.  It was pleaded that the OP helped the complainant to get the refund of Euro 3000/- and did not charge a single penny for that. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. 

4.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

5.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants.

6.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 

7.                      The ld. Counsel for the complainants/appellants has argued that the GMIT institute, in which the complainant took admission, had taken a fee of Euro 5000/- for the first year, as mentioned in Annexure R-9. He has argued that when the complainant did not adjust, the entire amount of Euro 5000/- has been refunded by the GMIT to the OP and has, in this respect, referred to Annexure R-21. His contention is that the entire amount of Euro 5000/- should have been paid back to the complainant, but the OP paid him only Rs.1,95,505/- vide Annexure R-22, which was equivalent to Euro 3000/- and the remaining amount of Euro 2000/- is yet to be paid by the OP.  This contention was not accepted by the ld. District Forum. Annexure R-23 is the letter issued by the OP to the complainant vide which he was informed that GMIT has refunded only Euro 3000/- in his name. Annexure R-21 mentions various entries which have been explained in Annexure R-24 that the first item, namely Euro 3000/-, related to Abhishek Sharma, the complainant, whereas the other three amounts related to different persons i.e. Birkaran Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Simrat Kaur. Annexure R-25 is the tax invoice vide which the amount of Euro 800/- was adjusted by the OP against Birkaran Singh whereas Annexure R-27 is the voucher vide which the payment of Rs.39,101/- was made to Fateh education and an equal amount to Simrat Kaur vide Annexure R-28.  In this manner, it is clear that the GMIT had refunded only a sum of Euro 3000/- for payment to the complainant and the said amount has already been paid to him.  It, therefore, cannot be said if the complainant was entitled to anything more in connection with the refund of the fee from the GMIT.

8.                      The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that it was the duty of the OP to provide free  airport pick up and drop facility  when the complainant reached Ireland but the same was not provided to him, which caused him to pay Euro 250/- besides mental and physical harassment.  His contention is that no compensation has been given to him by the ld. District Forum in that respect.  This argument is devoid of merit.  Annexure R-12 is the letter signed by the complainant to the effect that the complainant did not want airport pick up or accommodation services as he was to arrange the same at his own.  It is signed by the complainant.  It is argued that the complainant had a relative in Ireland and he wanted to go with the said relative due to which, he did not want the pick up facility or accommodation.  The complainant was, therefore, not entitled to any compensation on this account.

9.                      It is also argued by the ld. Counsel for the complainants/appellants that he did not find any vegetarian food and had to live for the entire period of his brief stay on water due to which he suffered physically and mentally for which he was entitled to compensation but the same has not been allowed by the ld. District Forum. This argument also is devoid of merit.  Annexure R-2 is the contract of engagement filled up by the complainant and Ireland was chosen by the complainant himself. Even the College E.B.I was chosen by him.  It was, therefore, the responsibility of the complainant himself to ascertain that vegetarian food would be available to him in the country where he was going for study.  Annexure  R-2 accompanies the list of services which were to be provided by the OP.  As per clause 9, the OP were to prepare him with facts and figures regarding the life style, working environment, job opportunities, living cost, currency etc.  They were not to provide any vegetarian food to him and it was the duty of the complainant to arrange the food himself.  This contention of the complainant that vegetarian food was not available cannot otherwise be believed because these days not to say of vegetarian food but even Indian food is available in every country due to the reason that Indians are going abroad and there is demand for Indian food which is being met everywhere throughout the world.  Otherwise also, it was the complainant who should have confirmed this fact before filling up the form and if he did not, it is his own fault and not of the OP.

10.                   The ld. counsel for the complainants/appellants has also argued that due to the harsh treatment at the University, the complainant could not adjust there and had to come back.  Even if it is believed to be so, the OP cannot be blamed for that because the College was chosen by the complainant himself and was not thrust on him by the OP. There is, however, Annexure R-14, which is the feedback form, showing that he had got good support from the staff members (of the OP) and every staff member was very helpful and supporting. They provided their clients the best knowledge of joining good institute.  Annexure R-16 is the email showing that the complainant left the office of the University to ring up his parents, but did not return and the owners of the house told the sender that the complainant left on Sunday and was traveling to India.  He left a note for the sender to say thank you for helping him arrange his flight.  He had made an excuse of his brother’s illness which was wrong.  He wrote Annexure R-18 and R-19 and requested for refund of the fee to him. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and if the complainant did not like to stay in Ireland, or did not like to study further, it was no fault of the OP.

11.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to their own costs.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

19^th July, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg