BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt.  Case No:1446 of 2009

Date of Institution:   17.11.2009

Date of Decision  :   24.09.2010

1]          Abhishek Sharma s/o Sh.Satish Sharma, # 5402/2, Modern Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

2]       Satish Sharma s/o Late Pt. Sardari Lal Sharma, # 5402/2, Modern Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

3]          Chander Prabha Sharma w/o Sh.Satish Sharma, # 5402/2, Modern Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

V E R S U S

Authorised Officer, Orion Consultancy and Coaching Services (OCCS), SCO 61, First Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh 160020, INDIA

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                           PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI              MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                          MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Rajiv Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Jagtar Kureel, Adv. for the OP

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by Sh.Abhishek Sharma & Ors. against Orion consultancy and Coaching Services (OCCS) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

1]             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.  The OP advised him to pursue degree or diploma course in Hotel Management and Catering.  The complainant opted to join the course in Hotel & Catering Management at GMIT University, Galway, Ireland and entered into a contract with the OP who would provide him assistance  to get the admission as well as visa.  The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to the OP for their services.  The complainant has alleged that he also paid  Tuition Fee, Visa and traveling charges besides other related expenses to the OP. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 21.6.2008 (Ann.C-1).  As per the complainant, all services to be provided by the OP were mentioned in the agreement.  But actually when the complainant went to U.K., he found that There was no free airport pick-up and no vegetarian food available for him (the complainant alleges that he had to live the entire period of his brief stay in Ireland  on water).  The OP had not prepared the complainant for the life style, work environment and job opportunities, living cost and currency of Ireland.  The complainant could not adjust at the University and therefore left Ireland and came back to India.  Thereafter, he approached the Op to get his money refunded from the University since he felt that they had misused his innocence and ignorance. 

                The complainant alleges that he had paid a total sum of Rs.3,22,186/- to the OP out of which the OP refunded Rs.1,95,505/-  only.  The complainant alleges that the OP never returned the balance amount.  The complainant feels that the OP received the amount from the University but never refunded it to him.  This action of the OP amounts to illegality and deficiency in service.  He has therefore filed the present complaint and prayed that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,26,681/- along with interest, as well as pay compensation for deficiency in service. 

2]             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.

                The OP in its reply has submitted that the complainant approached them on 21.6.2008 and showed interest to study in Ireland.  He also enquired about all procedures, cost, college, course, visa application process and documents required for study in New Zealand.  The complainant selected EBI College, Ireland and filed an assessment Form for the same (Ann.R-1).

                The OP had informed the complainant about various other colleges/institutions of other countries also.  The complainant himself chosen to stay in EBI College, Ireland.  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 the complainant.  All required formalities were duly complied with by the complainant and the OP, after which the complainant set off for Ireland to pursue the said course. 

                The complainant had himself refused the airport pickup facility in writing because he had his friend in that country.  The OP also denies that the complainant could not find any vegetarian food and lived the entire stay only on water.  As pleaded by them, there are a number of hotels in Ireland where vegetarian food was available.  They have also denied the fact that no guidance was given to the complainant, rather, he was prepared with all facts &figures of that country and was also provided emergency contact telephone numbers of GMIT and the Indian High Commission, Ireland. 

                The OP submits that the complainant could not settle in GMIT University and remained there for three days only.  Thereafter he returned to India.  His ticket was arranged by a staff member of the college, who was never paid back the money spent on the complainant. 

                Also the complainant did not given any information to the University or the OP about his departure from Ireland.  The complainant had in fact made an excuse about his cousin’s sickness.

                Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP for help to get a refund of the fee paid to the University.  A copy of the letter of apology submitted by the complainant is placed at Ann.R-18.  After numerous correspondence with the University, the University agreed to refund the fee paid by the complainant after necessary deductions.  The OP submits that it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had tried to get a refund from the University himself, and when he himself failed, he requested the OP to intervene.  The OP helped the complainant to get the refund and did not charge a single penny for this service from the complainant.  As per the OP, the University refunded Euro 3000/- on account of fee of complainant to the OP.  The rate of the Euro being Rs.65.168 on that date, the calculated amount of Rs.1,95,505/- was duly paid by the OP to the complainant vide cross-cheque dated 12.7.2009.  The copy of the receipt and cheque has been placed at Ann.R-21 & 22.

                The e-mail received from the University to the complainant where it is clearly mentioned that the University has refunded Euro 3000/- in his name has been placed at Ann.R-23.  Praying that the demand of the complainant for the excess amount is not justified since the rest of the amount received from the University was in reference to other accounts, the OP has requested for dismissal of the complaint.

3]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence and documents placed on record by the parties. 

4]                 At the time of arguments, both the parties after arguing their case on the facts already stated above, kept on emphasizing on the e-mails correspondence exchanged between them and the University.

                    The complainant has placed on record e-mails with regard to the refund along with the additional evidence filed by him.  As per this, the University has written “…the amount refunded was Euro 4987.50..”.  Nowhere has details of calculations of this amount been given. 

                    The e-mail placed on record by the OP at Ann.R-21 & R-23 shows that Euro 5000/- was refunded out of which only Euro 3000/- was for the complainant. 

                    From the above, if we take into consideration the e-mails provided by both parties, the e-mails placed on record by the OP are more specific about the amount received from the university for the complainant.  The e-mails placed on record by the complainant only shows the amount refunded by the University.   

5]                 In view of the above, the District Forum cannot, adjudicate on this matter as the e-mails of both parties are not concurrent. 

                    The complainant has not been able to prove his contentions with any other evidence.  We therefore dismiss the complaint.    

                    Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.

Announced                                                      Sd/-

24^th Sept., 2010                                                (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                           Sd/-            

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

“om”