Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that the complainant wants to start his business of Tourist Visa at Moga and after seeing the advertisement of Opposite Party on social media, the complainant contacted the authorized person of Opposite Party No.1 in the month of February, 2024 and inquired their services and the fee. The concerned authorized person of Opposite Party told the complainant that they will receive Rs.31,800/- for coaching of applying Tourist Visa from one person and out of the said total amount of Rs.11,800/- will be paid through online and Rs.20,000/- will be paid cash. As per the demand of Opposite Party, the complainant transferred Rs.11,800/- on 29.03.2024 in the account of Opposite Party and also paid Rs.20,000/- cash to the Opposite Party. After receiving the above said amount of Rs.31,800/- from the complainant, the authorized person of Opposite Party gave assurance to the complainant that they will provide their services to the complainant through online classes and in this regard the Opposite Party also gave their links to start the said classes and the concerned persons also gave date and time of said classes. As per the date and time given by the authorized person of Opposite Party, when the complainant tried to start the said class, he found that the said link given by the Opposite Party was not correct and after that the complainant contacted the Opposite Party through the phone numbers provided by them, but the concerned person has not given any satisfactory answer to the complainant. Since 29.03.2024 till the filing of the present complaint, the complainant made efforts to join the said online class and also to join offline classes, but the concerned authorized person of Opposite Party lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Alleged that the Opposite Party has already received the full and final payment of Rs.31,800/- from the complainant for providing services of giving coaching of applying tourist visa, but they did not provide the said services to the complainant and not even a single class was joined through online or offline. Thereafter, the complainant made various requests to the Opposite Party either to return the above said amount or to join him coaching of applying tourist visa, but the Opposite Party denied to make the payment to the complainant on 01.07.2024. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to return the amount of Rs.31,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.

2.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission at Moga as all the disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of court at SAS Nagar, Mohali; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed because A Square language is a proprietorship and the complainant has not arrayed the owner of the proprietorship as one of the party. On merits, it is admitted that the total fee for the course was Rs.31,800/- out of which Rs.11,800/- was paid by the complainant to Opposite Party, but Rs.20,000/- paid in cash is totally denied and in case, the complainant had paid in cash, then he is under obligation to produce the receipt for the same. Averred that classes were to be taken by way of online as well as offline as per the choice of the student. As the complainant opted for online classes so a link was created which was forwarded to the complainant to join the class and the complainant had jointed the class on the link, but later on complainant told the Opposite Party that he had gone to Dubai, where he may have been facing the problem of link, but the Opposite Party told the complainant that in case of any difficulty, he can come and join the offline classes in the head office at SAS Nagar, Mohali, but thereafter, no complaint was received from the complainant as per whatsapp chat, he had joined the classes by way of online mode. Averred further that complainant had taken all the classes by way of online method, thereafter when in the middle of session, the Opposite Party directed the complainant to deposit the remaining amount of the fees, then complainant started creating nuisance and making excuses. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Complainant also filed replication to the written reply of Opposite Parties, wherein he denied the objections raised by the Opposite Parties in the written reply.

4.       In order to prove the case, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-I to Ex.C-V.

5.       On the other hand, Opposite Party has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Ankit Malhotra, Proprietor, A Square Languages Academy as Ex.R/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 and R2.

6.         We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties and also gone through the record.

7.       The case of the complainant is that in order to starting immigration services/business, the complainant availed the services of Opposite Party and joined the ‘Visa Management Course’ of Opposite Party by paying an amount of Rs.31,800/-, but the Opposite Party did not provide the service as per the commitment. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party for not providing the service filed the present complaint.

8.       On the other hand, counsel for the Opposite Party claimed that they were always ready to provide due services to the complainant, but the complainant himself moved Dubai and was not available for the classes. So, there is no deficiency in service on its part.

9.       The complainant in his complaint wrongly claimed that the total course fee of Rs.31,800/- was paid and out of which he paid Rs.11,800/-, through online and Rs.20,000/- in cash, which is wrong assertion made by the complainant. This view of ours is based upon on the whatsapp conversation exchanged between the parties (placed on record as Ex.C-IV), wherein the complainant has asked for the refund of amount of Rs.11,800/- only and nowhere in any of the message he referred the amount of Rs.20,000/- allegedly been paid by him in cash, which tantamounts to wrong disclosure of the fact.

10.     Thorough perusal of the record reveals that complainant had not paid the amount as alleged in the complaint, rather he paid Rs.11,800/- (Ex.C-II) is evident of the fact. There is no evidence to prove that he paid Rs.20,000/- in cash to the Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint. Also copies of whatsapp chat exchanged between the parties reveals that the complainant moved Dubai after making payment of the amount of course in question and due to non suitability of the timings no proper classes  could be managed from both the sides and ultimately he asked for the refund of the amount so paid.

11.     During the course of arguments ld. counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that they are ready to make refund of amount paid by complainant as a goodwill gesture. We appreciate the offer so made by the Opposite Party.

11.     From the discussion above and considering the offer so made by Opposite Party, we are passing the order accordingly by allowing the instant complaint in part. Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.11,800/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred only) to the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not imposing the cost against compensation. However, from the conversation exchanged between the parties through whatsapp reveals that the Opposite Party acknowledged the refund of the amount, but despite that they failed to refund of amount and indulged the complainant into avoidable litigation. Hence, Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed off. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties are further burdened with additional amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission