STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Kamaljit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh, resident of  Village Begpur Kamlooh, P.O. Dhamian, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

……Appellant

V E R S U S

1]    Daffodils Study Abroad (P) Ltd., English Academy, SCO No.2419-20, Second Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through Sh.Dheeraj Jalota.

2]    Sh.Dheeraj Jalota, Daffodils Study Abroad (P) Ltd., 4th Floor, Mida Corporate Jalandhar.

              ....Respondents

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

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.09.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.             The  facts,  in  brief,  are that the complainant, submitted an application to the Opposite Parties, against an advertisement issued by them, for pursuing the Advance Diploma Course in Hotel Management, abroad.  It was stated that all the documents, required by the Opposite Parties, were duly submitted by the complainant.  The complainant, also paid a fee of Rs.3.50 lacs, to the Opposite Parties, for the said course on 17.8.2009.  He too completed the IELTS Course from  the Opposite Parties. After the Visa for the said course was provided by the Opposite Parties, the complainant was sent to United Kingdom on 01.10.2009.  He joined the aforesaid course, at ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, on 02.10.2009. It was stated that the complainant had been told that he was also required to clear a pre-sessional course of 3 months, as per the Visa Letter, and the confirmation certificate, issued by the Admission Officer.  The complainant started attending this course, on his arrival at ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland. It was further stated that the complainant, was not provided any hostel or other facilities, as promised by the School.  He had to make his own arrangements, for food, and lodging. It was further stated that, at that time, the U.K. Government, conducted a raid on the School, aforesaid, and issued a notice to the School Authorities, to close down the same, as they had not complied with the legal formalities, for running the same (School). It was further stated that the School was being run only in two rooms. It was further stated that  this fact was not disclosed by the Opposite Parties

3.             Due to the aforesaid reasons, as well as, non-availability of the requisite facilities, the complainant, suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. When the School was closed, due to non-compliance of the Rules, by the Govt., the Complainant was sent back to India, on sick leave.  It was further stated that the complainant was told that he would be called back, after the issuance of leave certificate. He came to India on 25.11.2009.  He took treatment from Suri Clinic. The main course was to start from 25.2.2010. The complainant submitted an advance application, to the Principal, for issuance of leave certificate, as he was not being allowed to go back, without the said certificate.  It was further stated no written reply, in this regard, was sent by the School. It was further stated that no certificate, was issued, in his favour, by the Principal of the said School.

4.             The complainant, then contacted the Opposite Parties and requested them, to make arrangement, to send him to the aforesaid School, but they put him off, on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that the complainant had even to get his flight cancelled, which was scheduled for 12.2.2010.  Thereafter, the complainant continuously approached the Opposite Parties, to send him back to ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, to complete his course, but to no avail.  Even, the tuition fees charges and other fees, deposited by the complainant, were not refunded to him. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed by the complainant, claiming refund of fees and compensation or, in the alternative, for issuance of a direction to the Opposite Parties, to send him abroad, to complete the course.

5.             The Opposite Parties,  put in appearance and filed written reply, wherein it was pleaded that ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, had not been impleaded as a party and, as such, the complaint was not maintainable.  It was admitted that the complainant completed IELTS Course from the Opposite Parties. It was stated that after completion of the said course, the complainant was sent to ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, for attending the course, as opted by him. It was further stated that the said School had demanded one year full tuition fee, for issuing the Visa letter, but the complainant, could not pay the same. Thus, the management agreed to accept the total fee, in two installments, as a special case.  The first installment was of GBP 3500 and the second installment of GBP 2000, which was to be paid within three months of joining the School. The complainant agreed to this offer.  It was further stated that the fee paid by the complainant, was not for the completion of his Advance Diploma in Hotel Management but included part payment of first year tuition fee (GBP 3500 equivalent to INR Rs.2,97,500 @Rs.85/- per GBP Consular Rate at that time), Visa Application Fee, courier charges of Rs.12,350/- Consultancy and file preparation fee      of Rs.40,000/-. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, had only assured the complainant, that they would be responsible for getting him admission, in the College, and preparing his case file.  It was also made clear to the complainant, that the Opposite Parties were not responsible for refusal of Visa and any fee paid, for the same, would be non-refundable.  It was further stated that only the tuition fee was refundable less GBP 160, as per the Rules of ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’, Scotland. It was further stated that the complainant had signed the relevant documents, in this regard. It was further stated that no fee was charged from the complainant, by ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, for the course of First Certificate in English,  of three months` duration. It was further stated that after receipt of Visa letter,  from the School, the file for grant of entry clearance (Visa) was prepared by the Opposite Parties, and was handed over to the complainant, alongwith Embassy fee,  for further submission of the same to the VFS, U.K. at Jalandhar.  It was further stated that the complainant, submitted the file and received his visa and, thereafter, went to U.K. on 01.10.2009. It was further stated that once the complainant, reported to ‘The Edinburgh School of Business`, the services provided by the Opposite Parties, came to an end. It was further stated that the complainant, had been informed, that ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’, Scotland could make the arrangement for stay only, if he, informed, them, in advance, and also made the payment in advance. It was further stated that the complainant, never informed the Opposite Parties, or the ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, to make arrangement for his stay.  It was further stated that provision of food etc., was not the duty of the Opposite Parties. It was denied, for want of knowledge, that any notice was issued to ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’, Scotland by the U.K. Government, to close down the School, due to legal complications.  It was further stated that no other student, except the complainant, had come back.   It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, had no connection with the affairs of the students or the management of the School.  It was further stated that it was between the students and School Management, as the students had to follow the Rules and Regulations, as laid down by the U.K.B.A. It was further stated that it was the duty of the student, to obtain the leave certificate, from the Management,  if he wanted to come back to India, on sick leave. It was denied that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, or they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

6.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the complainant, as well as, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, and, as such, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

10.           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that it was through the OPs, that the complainant, opted for Visa and admission to the course, in question. He further submitted that it was through the Opposite Parties, that fees was deposited with ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland. He further submitted that the complainant was not told, in advance, that there was no infrastructure and the college was being run, in only two rooms. He further submitted that he was also not told by the Opposite Parties, in advance, that the School was not recognized, and its affiliation, was likely to be cancelled. He further submitted that, no doubt, the complainant, came back to India, on sick leave, yet, after getting treatment, in India, he sent emails to the Management of the School for calling him back, but no reply was sent by the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, it was not obligatory,  on the part of the appellant, to array, ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, as a party to the complaint. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties, were, thus, deficient, in rendering service, and, as such, the complainant was entitled to the refund of fees, compensation etc. etc., but the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in holding otherwise and dismissing the complaint. It was further submitted, that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

11.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, the services of the Opposite parties, were hired by the complainant, as a result whereof, they provided him consultancy, for grant of Visa and getting admission in ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland. It is evident from C-5, a letter from ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, that the complainant, was accepted as a full time student of ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, for his First Certificate Course in English­­­­­­­. This course was to start on 28.09.2009, whereas the last date to join the same was 05.10.2009, and it was to end on 30.12.2009. C-6, is another letter, written by the aforesaid School, according to which, it was confirmed that Mr. Singh (appellant), had been accepted, as a full time student, at Edinburgh for the Course in Advance Diploma in Hotel Management. This course too, was to start from 25.01.2010 and was to end on 29.01.2012. C-7, is the letter of ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, mentioning the details of  fees, which was to be deposited by the complainant, for the Course. It is also evident, from this document, that the complainant was provided Visa. It was further intimated vide this letter that ‘The Edinburgh School of Business’ Scotland, will guarantee to provide accommodation to the complainant, and he had to pay 600 Pounds, per month, to support him outside London in U.K. C-8, is the letter confirming that the complainant had been enrolled as full-time student, in Advance Diploma in Hotel Management Programme, awarded by ESOB, which commenced on 28.09.2009 and was to last upto 30.12.2011. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant joined the  Course. He attended the Course, for about two months, and, thereafter, he came back to India, on sick leave. C-9 dated 21.01.2010, is the email, which was written by the complainant, to the School authorities, whereby, he intimated that he had not received the leave certificate, without which, he was unable to come back. He further intimated, vide this email, that his flight was cancelled because of foggy weather. C-10, is also the email dated 22.01.2010, to the same effect. C-11, is the email dated 29.01.2010, and C-12, is the email dated 05.02.2010, which were also sent by the complainant, to the School authorities on the same lines. In none of these emails, it was mentioned, by the complainant, that the School was being run, in two rooms, and it had no infrastructure. It was also not mentioned, in these emails, that notice was issued to the School, for the cancellation of its affiliation, by the U.K. Government. Had, this been the position, the complainant would have certainly written these facts, in these emails. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that there was no infrastructure, in the School; that it was being run in two rooms; and that a notice was issued to it, for the cancellation of affiliation, was belied from the aforesaid emails. No other evidence, was produced by the complainant, to support the contentions, aforesaid. He, on the other hand, intimated the School authorities, that he be called back  to join the course. Had the aforesaid deficiencies, been in existence, in the aforesaid School, he would not have preferred to go back to join the Course. The complainant of his own, left the course, on the basis of alleged sick leave, for the reasons, best known to him. He was unable to prove, any deficiency, in the infrastructure of the School or that its affiliation was going to be cancelled. Even otherwise, the duty of the Opposite Parties, was only to provide him consultation, assist him in getting Visa, as also, admission in the School. The services required to be rendered by the Opposite Parties, came to an end, as soon as the complainant, got admission in the aforesaid School, in Advance Diploma in Hotel Management, abroad. Even the complainant, did not ask for refund of fees, in any of the emails, referred to above. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Parties were not deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum, thus, rightly dismissed the complaint. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

12.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

13.           The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.           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.

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

16.           The file be consigned, to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

December 1, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg