Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/652/2014

Yogesh KUmar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Educity Immigration Consultants Pvt. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. T.S.Khaira Adv.

06 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	652/2014
Date of Institution	:	15.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	06/07/2015

 

                                               

                                     

 

Yogesh Kumar s/o Sh.Rambir Singh r/o 22-C, Mohalla Ward No.16, Near Santoshi Mandir, Hodal, District Palwal, Haryana-121106.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

Educity Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd., SCO 93, Second Floor, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh through its Director Nitin Sharma.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.T.S.Khara, Advocate for the complainant

                        None for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that in August, 2012 he contacted the Opposite Party to study in hospitality, travel and tourism after he was impressed by an advertisement which he saw on a TV program hosted on ETC ZEE Punjabi TV channel wherein the Director of the OP claiming himself to be a partner of the United Asia School of Management, Singapore made tall claims about fulfilling the dreams of many prospective students wishing to study in foreign universities.  The complainant was promised an academic course in Singapore followed by practical training in a reputed hotel in Malaysia or Singapore. After completion of the formalities, the complainant was asked to pay the fee of the study course and also misc. expenditures to be paid in Indian rupees equivalent to 10500 Singapore dollars. In addition to this, he was also asked to pay Rs.30000/- as registration charges. A copy of the receipt dated 21.08.2012 for Rs.30000/- deposited in the bank account of the OP is Annexure C-1.   The OP had assured the complainant that it would apply for his study visa and also for admission in the United Asia School of Management, Singapore and the visa  as well as the offer letter will be mailed to him but to no effect.  It has further been averred that on coming to Chandigarh, he was told to deposit course fee for two months in Singapore dollars, amounting to Rs.4,65,000/-.  He had withdrawn a sum of Rs.3.60  lacs from his savings bank account maintained State Bank of Patiala on 07.09.2012. A copy of the passbook of the said account showing the transaction is Annexure C-2.  He was also made to deposit 10500 Singapore dollars (payment was made in Indian rupees equal to SGD 10500 as per exchange rate) with the OP but it did not issue the receipt. However, on much persuasion it issued the receipt dated 14.09.2012 for only 8000 Singapore dollars alongwith the e-mail dated 06.12.2012.   A copy of the e-mail and the receipt is Annexure C-3 (Colly.).  In the said receipt, it was clearly mentioned that the course fee is of two months and that the fees was payable upon student pass approval or study visa. However, the OP did not give any receipt for 2500 Singapore dollars and on the asking of the complainant, it gave evasive answer that it was the fee for getting him admitted in the school at Singapore.  Thereafter, the complainant was handed over a letter of offer dated 23.08.2012, Annexure C-4 by the OP from the United Asia School of Management, Singapore wherein he was enrolled into the institute for the certificate in hospitality, travel and tourism.  The course was to commence on 26.09.2012.  The complainant was handed over the e-Visa, Annexure C-5 for Singapore by the OP. He was flabbergasted  on coming to know that the said Visa was a tourist/visitor visa and not a student/study visa as promised.  On enquiry, he was informed that on reaching Singapore, the study visa would be provided to him with the help of school principal. The complainant also threatened that if he did not travel on the tourist visa, the entire money deposited by him would be forfeited and the admission would be cancelled.  According to the complainant,  from the conjoint reading of the offer letter and the fee receipt, it is evident that the total course comprised of two months study course and thereafter 6-12 months training in Singapore or Malaysia.  Thereafter, he got the Indian currency converted into Singapore dollars vide receipts dated 12.09.2012, Annexures C-6 and C-7 respectively.  He left for Singapore on 18.09.2012.  On approaching the Director of United Asia School of Management, Singapore, he was shocked to learn that the said fee receipt of 8000 Singapore dollars was not issued by the school.  Still the Director of the school allowed him to join the classes as they were hand in glove with the OP.  The Director of the school, continued to give evasive replies to the queries of issuance of study visa. It has further been averred that his visitor visa was to expire and the student visa was not forthcoming and, therefore, he raised the matter with the OP who offered him one month extended visa in Singapore vide Annexure C-8. It was only after making hue and cry that the OP got the visa extended for three days. Even after the extension, the study visa was not forthcoming and left with no other option, the complainant left the Singapore. 
2. Subsequently, the complainant raised the issue with the Principal of the school and the OP. However, the OP devised a new plan and asked him to go to Indonesia from Singapore and stay there for a few days and apply for the visa of Singapore from Indonesia.    The complainant was constrained to spend on his air tickets to and fro Singapore and Jakarta. Apart from the air tickets, the complainant was made to spend on the visa and service charges levied at the Jakarta Airport on international passengers.  He had to spend 280 Singapore dollars for air tickets from Singapore to Jakarta, the receipt and the ticket are Annexures C-10 and C-11. On reaching Indonesia on 19.11.2012, the complainant had to pay the visa on arrival fee of 25 US $. The receipt of the payment is Annexure C-12. The bank statement for withdrawal of Rs.47,456/-  from the account of the complainant is Annexure C-13. A copy of the air ticket from Jakarta to and Singapore for his flight on 01.12.2012 is Annexure C-14. While departing from Indonesia international passengers have to pay the service charges at Jakarta airport. The complainant also paid a sum of 1,50,000 Indonesian Rupiyah vide receipt Annexure C-15. According to the complainant, he incurred all these expenses for the default of the OP.
3. It has further been averred that on reaching back to Singapore from Jakarta, he was asked by the OP to go to the school to attend the classes.  However neither any attendance was marked nor any assignment or study material was provided to the complainant.  According to the complainant, his patience was running out, a two month course has already been taken more than that, he was made to go to Indonesia and back, the study visa was not still forthcoming.  As the date of expiry of the extended visa of Singapore was coming close, the complainant had to leave Singapore and travel back to India.  The flight ticket of the complainant from Singapore to Delhi is Annexure C-16.
4. It has further been averred that on coming back to India, the complainant rushed to the office of the OP in Chandigarh and upon heated arguments, the OP gave two letters to him. One of the letter is further training acceptance letter which was dated 29.11.2012 whereby six months training was allowed and allocated to him and Sh.Daljit Singh Cheema. The copies of the letters are Annexure C-17 and C-18.  It has further been averred that it is evident from the letter that the complainant had to travel to Malaysia on professional training Visa and that the said training was for six months period.  Being skeptical, he did not believe the OP this time and he asked the time and again to get the professional training visa beforehand and then only he would leave India. In order to pacify the complainant, the OP came with another letter dated 21.12.2012, Annexure C-19 stating therein that it was a letter from hospitality group in which his training was fixed.   According to the complainant, the said letter was in Malaysian language and therefore, he could not comprehend the same.  It has further been averred that he kept on asking the OP either to refund the fee amount or to send him to Malaysia for physical training on a proper visa but to no effect. The complainant himself wrote an e-mail dated 28.12.2012 to the Principal of the United Asia School of Management, Singapore asking her about the relevant documents for job training in Malaysia. In response to the said e-mail, the complainant was informed that his internship programme has been terminated for no rhyme or reason.  The copies of the said e-mails are Annexure C-20.  The complainant again wrote an e-mail dated 02.01.2013, Annexure C-21 to the Director, United Asia School of Management, Singapore but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice twice on 22.01.2014 and 01.02.2014 but the same was received back refused on 25.01.2014 and 03.02.2014 respectively. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
5.           Despite affording several opportunities, the OP failed to file the reply to the complaint and evidence by way of affidavit, and as such its defence was struck off vide order dated 07.05.2015.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
7.           In view of the averments made by the complainant in the complaint, the core question to be decided in this case is, as to whether, the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the principal laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.22532 of 2012 decided on 9.8.2012. The answer to the question is in the negative. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Another’s case (supra) held as under: -

 

      “In view of the judgment of this court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 = 2010 (2) CPC 696 SC, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity.  Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency in service.  Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

       In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. Thus, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

8.           Besides this in  Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Revision Petition No.638 of 2014, decided on 02.05.2014, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that neither the student, fell within the definition of a consumer, nor  the Opposite Parties fell within the definition of Service Providers.
9.           Our view is further strengthened from the order passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.244 of 2014-M/s FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Mayank Tiwari, decided on 23.9.2014 whereby the appeal filed by M/s FIITJEE Ltd. was accepted and the order of this Forum was set aside and it was held that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer.   Even the order dated 23.09.2014, aforesaid,  passed by our own Hon'ble State Commission has been upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission vide its order dated 08.12.2014 passed  in Revision Petition No.4335/2014- Mayank Tiwari Vs. M/s FIITJEE Ltd.      The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.  In the instant case also, the complainant is seeking the refund of the fee amount alongwith other charges. 
10.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is not maintainable and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek any other legal remedy, which is available to him under law.
11.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06/07/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER