STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 290 of 2018 |
Date of Institution | | 05.10.2018 |
Date of Decision | | 09.10.2018 |
Hitesh Sharma son of Sh. Raman Kumar, Resident of Village & Post Office Sanoli, District Una (H.P).
……Appellant
V e r s u s
. 1. Career Plus Education Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory having its Office at SCO 142-143, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
2. The Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, Career Plus Education Pvt. Ltd., having its Office at SCO 142-143, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
3. Pooja Menon, Director, Career Plus Education Pvt. Ltd., having its Office at SCO 142-143, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
…….Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 30.08.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 871/2016.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER
Argued by: Mr.Neeraj Sharma, advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), partly allowing his complaint.
2. As per admitted facts on record, the complainant hired services of OPs to process his papers and make other arrangements to facilitate his admission in FTMS Global Academy, Singapore, to pursue his diploma in the subject of Hospitality & Tourism Management. Work permit was also to be arranged by the OPs. On demand, he paid an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- which included admission fee, food and lodging in a hostel and air tickets etc. He handed over his passport and other documents to the OPs, continued to wait for intimation to join the course on completion of the process. In January,2016, he was intimated that the process was complete and he was made to board a flight to Singapore on 28.2.2016 from New Delhi. It was further intimated that the study course would start on 1.2.2016. The complainant reached Singapore and came to know that the study course had already started whereof 4.1.2016. For delayed admission, he was made to pay Rs.4500/- (90USD). For deficient course fee paid, he was to deposit Rs.3500/-(70USD). He was also asked to pay Rs.1750/- (35USD) for medical test which was got conducted by the college authorities. When hostel facility was not given to him, he arranged his own food and lodging by incurring additional expenses of Rs.25000/- for two months. He contacted the OPs on telephone with a request to provide the facility promised, however, he failed to get any relief. Perplexed and confused in the above situation, the complainant came to India on 3.4.2016. In a way, he attended the study course for about two months. After his return to India, he took up the matter with OPs seeking refund of the amount paid, however, he failed to get any positive response, upon which, he sent legal notice on 4.6.2016 seeking refund of the amount paid and compensation etc. .
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the OPs stating that they were engaged to process his case for study visa in an educational institute at Singapore. There was no promise to secure work permit, as alleged. It was further said that once the OPs had secured admission for the complainant in a foreign institute, their liability came to an end. It was also said that the complainant had left the course of his own free will without even intimating the OPs. Pleading that there was no deficiency in rendering service, a prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, partly allowed the complaint by granting following relief to the appellant/complainant ;
- To refund an amount of Rs.2,15,200/- (Rs.5,60,000/- minus Rs.3,44,800/-) to the Complainant which were overcharged by the Opposite Parties;
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.
- To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant.
The awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a time bound manner, failing which, it was to entail penal interest.
5. It was grievance of the complainant that the Forum has committed an error by not ordering refund of entire amount paid. It is his case that admission was delayed deliberately and further for non-providing hostel facility, action of the OPs needs to be depreciated. It was further vehemently contended that the complainant was forced to leave the study course in between as he was not provided the facilities which were promised to be provided by the OPs.
6. We have heard Counsel for the appellant and are of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge. It is an admitted fact that the OPs were deficient in arranging admission of the complainant in the educational institute concerned at Singapore, which was arranged at a belated stage. One month study course was virtually over when the complainant reached Singapore. In paragraph No.7 of the impugned order, the Forum has rightly said that by not making sufficient arrangement as per promise made, the OPs were guilty of providing deficient service. It was also noticed that for non-providing of the facility and putting an additional cost/burden upon the complainant, he felt frustrated and came to India leaving the course in between. Making reference to the problem suffered by him in paragraph No.9 of the judgment under challenge, the Forum rightly said that the complainant was confused and shattered on account of lack of facilities to be provided by the OPs. It was also noted, as a matter of fact, that from the complainant, the OPs charged an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- whereas the OPs paid only Rs.3,44,800/- to the concerned educational institute. Taking that an amount of Rs.2,15,200/- was charged in excess, its refund has been ordered. It was further staid that the amount deducted towards hostel facility was not chargeable as hostel facility was not made available to the complainant.
7. To the prayer made by the complainant that full amount be ordered to be refunded, it was rightly said that the complainant was also at fault as he, of his own, left the course. Contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the Forum committed an error in not refunding the entire amount appears to be fallacious. It is not in dispute that the complainant reached Singapore and thereafter, on making payment for reporting late for admission, he was allowed to join the study course. It was his duty to object it when offer was made to him late. Document on record signed by him clearly indicates that the date of commencement of the course was made known to the complainant. Before boarding the flight, he did not raise any objection qua sending him late to attend the study course. Furthermore, on account of leaving the course midway, the seat left by him must have gone waste as after lapse of about 2½ months, no person will opt to join the course. The Forum has granted sufficient compensation. No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
9 . Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
