Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he visited the office of the opponent along with his Son Arjun on 8^th May, 2009. The executive of the opponent gave information about five years course out of which two years indoor training in Mumbai as well as in Chennai.  After getting C.D.C. the student will be sent abroad on ship for practical training and student will get stipend of $500 for first year, $600 to $750 for second year and $700 to $950 for third year.  After completion of course, student will become Captain or Engineer and will earn salary in lakhs of rupees.  Allured by the representation, the complainant decided to enroll his son for that course.  Total fee was of Rs.4,61,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.11,000/- on 8^th May, 2009 and enroll his son.  The opponent issued letter for availing bank loan.  The complainant paid Rs.1,000/- to the Agent for the purpose of bank loan. The course was started in July-2009. One day the complainant was called by the office of the opponent and asked to pay Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant was not ready as the opponent gave assurance for bank loan.  However, the complainant arranged money and paid on 19^th June, 2009. After three months, the complainant was asked to pay the remaining amount.  The complainant had no option therefore he took friendly loans and paid the amount of Rs.2,30,000/- on 28^th December, 2009 and Rs.1,30,000/- on 30^th December, 2009.  The opponent gave discount of Rs.40,000/-. In March-2011, C.D.C. was given to the son of the complainant. The opponent collected Rs.16,500/- from the son of complainant though it was not in fee structure.   In April-2011, the opponent called meeting and told that student will be sent abroad on ship till June-2011.  Till March-2012, the complainant’s son was jobless.  The opponent was giving false explanation and failed to send the son abroad. The opponent admitted his deficiency and shown readiness to repay amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as amount for replacement and to that effect signature of the complainant was taken on a letter in December-2011.  However, the opponent paid only Rs.20,000/-.  In April, amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in complainant’s account.  Thereafter, amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- was deposited.  Though the opponent promised to repay Rs.1,60,000/- the opponent failed.  The opponent refused to pay balance amount of Rs.60,000/-.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for refund of Rs.60,000/- with interest.  He also claimed compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- for not sending his son for training where he was supposed to get stipend.  He has also claimed Rs.16,500/- which was collected from the complainant in Chennai. He has claimed Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for mental harassment and cost of this proceeding Rs.25,000/-. 

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that considering the request of the complainant discount of Rs.50,000/- was given.  The complainant paid total fee Rs.4,21,000/-.  The complainant agreed to have placement through some other agency. He has requested to refund the expenses for placement i.e. Rs.1 Lakh.  The opponent agreed to refund Rs.1 Lakh and not Rs.1,60,000/-.  The complainant submitted application dated 26^th December, 2011 demanding Rs.1,60,000/-.  Considering concession of Rs.50,000/- at the time of admission the opponent was ready to pay Rs.90,000/- On oral request of the complainant, the opponent agreed to pay Rs.1 Lakh.  Amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by R.T.G.S. on 9^th April, 2012.  Amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in bank account bearing No.55210010019808 of IDBI Bank Mumbai on different dates in the year-2012.  After payment, the complainant agreed to discharge the opponent from the burden of placement.  Now, the complainant is estopped to file this complaint therefore it is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- In prayer clause (b), the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.60,000/- along with interest as promised by the opponent.  In para 3I) of the complaint, the complainant has stated that as the opponent failed to send his son  abroad, the opponent showed readiness to repay the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as amount for replacement and to that effect the signature was taken on a letter in December-2011.  In para 3N) of the complaint, the complainant has stated the opponent promised to pay Rs.1,60,000/- but paid only Rs.1 Lakh and refused to pay Rs.60,000/-.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for refund of Rs.60,000/- with interest.  The complainant is placing reliance on the letter dated 26^th December, 2011.  According to the complainant the amount in this letter was written Rs.1,60,000/-.  On the other hand, according to the opponent the complainant opted to go abroad through some other agency and therefore asked to refund the money towards expenses for that purpose.  He has requested for refund of Rs.1,60,000/-. After considering concession of Rs.50,000/- given to the complainant at the time of admission, the opponent paid Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant.  The letter is dated 26^th December, 2011.  The said amount was paid as full and final settlement.  The complainant signed this letter.  Thus, both the parties are relying on the letter dated 26^th December, 2011.  Both the parties are admitting this letter but the amount written in the letter is disputed.  According to the complainant amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was written. On the other hand, it is case of the opponent that after considering concession of Rs.50,000/- given to the complainant at the time of admission, amount of Rs.1 Lakhs was written. On going through the letter, it is clear that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- in words and as well as in figure was written but the same is altered to Rs.1 Lakh in words and in figure by overwriting.  It is not clear who has carried overwriting.  By this overwriting, the opponent is benefited.  From the beginning it is the say of the complainant that the amount Rs.1,60,000/- was agreed to pay.  Any ordinary prudent man will say that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was written in this letter.  Therefore, the submission of the complainant has to be accepted.  In the earlier notice dated 27^th July, 2012 also the complainant has stated about the amount Rs.1,60,000/- and balance of Rs.60,000/-.  Therefore, the defence of the opponent can not be accepted.  Admittedly, the opponent paid only Rs.1 Lakh therefore the opponent is liable to pay balance amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest. 

5)                In prayer clause c), the complainant has claimed amount of Rs.10,80,000/- with interest. In the complaint, the complainant has not given the details for calculating the amount of Rs.10,80,000/-.  But, in prayer clause c), the complainant has stated that he was supposed to get stipend.  The complainant will get stipend only if he is sent onboard training.  In the letter dated 26^th December, 2011, the complainant has stated that he has got one job opportunity on his own and from his personal source.  Therefore, he has requested to refund the amount of Rs.1,60,000/-.  It is not disputed that the complainant signed this letter willingly.  In the counter affidavit dated 27^th April, 2014, filed on 6^th June, 2014, para 9, the complainant has stated that his son went abroad on another ship.  He was getting $200 per month.  As per the letter dated 26^th December, 2011, the complainant settled the dispute and agreed the refund of Rs.1,60,000/-.  He has accepted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under this settlement.  It shows that he has given up his claim for sending his son abroad.  Therefore, now, he can not claim compensation for it.  At this juncture, the learned advocate for the opponent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik and Ors. –Versus- State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1913. In para 8 of the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :

In Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.

Similar facts are before us. The complainant agreed for refund of Rs.1,60,000/- and accepted Rs.1Lakh. Therefore, the complainant can not claim recovery of stipend. The learned advocate for the complainant has cited judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and of Hon’ble High Courts on the point of estoppel.  We have gone through these judgments carefully.  After considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts in these judgments and the above cited judgment, we came to conclusion that the complainant received the amount after settlement and got the job through other agency.  Therefore, he is not entitled for recovery of the stipend amount.

6)                In prayer clause d), the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.16,500/- which was recovered from his son.  But, the complainant has not produced any evidence to that effect.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to recover it from the opponent. 

7)               The complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment. The opponent failed to pay amount of Rs.60,000/- as per the settlement thereby the complainant suffered from mental agony.  The opponent is liable to pay compensation for it.  Compensation of Rs.50,000/- is excessive.  We think compensation of Rs.10,000/- will suffice the purpose.   Beside this, the complainant is entitled for the cost of this proceeding Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.
2. The opponent is directed to refund Rs.60,000/- (Rs.Sixty Thousand Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 6^th November, 2012 till realization. 
3. The opponent is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant  as compensation.
4. The opponent is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of this proceeding.
5. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
6. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced

Dated 27^th June, 2014