Punjab

StateCommission

CC/743/2018

Gurdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Global Education Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kashyap

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Consumer Complaint No.743 of 2018

Date of institution : 18.09.2018

Reserved on : 20.03.2019

Date of decision : 08 .04.2019

Gurdev Singh, aged 45 years, son of Ajit Singh, resident of Ward No.6, Sahawala Road, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.

…….Complainant

Versus

Global Education Solutions Majitha, Amritsar (Immigration firm) through its proprietor Gurpreet Singh son of Ram Singh, resident of Ward No.12, Global Education Solutions, Majitha, Amritsar.
Gurpreet Singh son of Ram Singh, resident of Ward No.12, Global Education Solutions, Majitha, Amritsar.
Harpreet Kaur wife of Gurpreet Singh.
Tarun Deep Singh @ Simran, brother of Harpreet Kaur,
Prit Pal Singh brother of Ram Singh, uncle of Gurpreet Singh.

Correspondence Address:

Little Angel Heart School near Bharat Telephone Limited, Amritsar, Pin:- 143 601, Punjab, and

Resident of Ward No.12, Darjiya Wali Gali City Majitha, Amritsar.

……..Opposite Parties

Consumer Complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member

Present:-

For the complainant : Shri Amit Kashyap, Advocate.

For the opposite parties: Shri Shrey Vasudev, Advocate for

Shri Simranjeet Singh, Advocate.

JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:

The complainant, Gurdev Singh, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “C.P. Act”) for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-

to refund ₹21,05,000/-; being the deposited amount along with 18% interest from the date of deposit till realization; and
to pay ₹5,00,000/-, as compensation, for unnecessary harassment, mental agony, pain and litigation expenses.

Facts of the Complaint:

3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the son of the complainant; namely, Kirpal Singh had passed 10+2 Secondary Education and wanted to study abroad. The complainant started search for some institute for providing immigration for study purposes to fulfil the desire of his son. During the course of search in the month of December 2016 the complainant contacted opposite party No.5-Prit Pal Singh, brother of Ram Singh, uncle of opposite party No.2, resident of Darjiyan Wali Gali, Ward No.12, City Majitha, Amritsar, who introduced himself as owner of opposite party No.1. The complainant consulted opposite party No.2 regarding the education of his son abroad. The complainant was assured by him that he would provide study visa from Canadian Government and will charge ₹21,05,000/-. The complainant by selling his land paid to opposite party No.2, Gurpreet Singh, owner/proprietor of opposite party No.1 a sum of ₹21,05,000/- on various dates, vide cheques and in cash/electronic clearance. To support the assertion the complainant has annexed some cheques/receipts as Ex.C2 to Ex.C2E. The details of the bank transactions are as under:-

(i) from Punjab and Sind Bank, Gulshan Road, Zira, Ferozepur account No.02771000020228, in the name of Gurdev Singh son of Ajit Singh, Ward No.6, Basti Machhian, Zira, Ferozepur, the amount of ₹4,00,000/- paid on 16.01.2017 through cheque No.889795 in favour of RTGS Global Education Solutions/PSIBH17016011636;

(ii) The amount of ₹2,00,000/- paid on 3.3.2017 through cheque No.000002 in favour of RTGS Global Education Solutions/PSIBH17062462751;

(iii) The cash amount of ₹50,000/- paid on 14.3.2017;

(iv) The amount of ₹1,15,000/- paid on 14.3.2017 to Gurpreet Singh;

(v) The cash amount of ₹90,000/- paid on 6.5.2017;

(vi) The amount of ₹5,50,000/- paid on 26.5.2017 through N.E.F.T. Global Education Solutions/SDL22712477.

(vii) The amount of ₹4,00,000/- paid on 17.6.2017 through RTGS Global Education Solutions/PSIBH17168360077.

(viii) The bank account of Kirpal Singh son of complainant opened through Axis Bank Account No.917010043354881 with the address Mr. Kirpal Singh Bhullar C/o Little Angel Heart School, Near Bharat Telephone Ltd., Amritsar, Punjab for further payment. This school was opened by the wife of Gurpreet Singh namely Harpreet Kaur on rented area and the immigration office also established in it.

(ix) The amount of ₹3,00,000/- paid on dated 10.7.2017 in favour of MOB/TPFT/Harpreet Kaur/916010063059200.

The amount in the above said transactions was allegedly paid to Gurpreet Singh, owner and proprietor of opposite party No.1, his wife Harpreet Kaur-opposite party No.3; his brother-in-law, Tarun Deep Singh @ Simran-opposite party No.4, who were doing the business for opposite party No.1. The opposite parties provided acknowledgement and receipt of Canada Visa Application Centre, Jalandhar, vide tracking ID No.201711201NJUSTU89995 to the son of the complainant Visa Category Study Permit on 20.11.2017, Ex.C3. After that the complainant submitted all the original documents to opposite party No.2, the proprietor of opposite party No.1 i.e. the original Passport, 10+2 Certificate, IELTS Certificate. However, the IELTS Certificate was alleged to be not valid at that point of time and the J-Form shown to the embassy was also given to Gurpreet Singh-opposite party No.2. The said documents are still in possession of Gurpreet Singh-opposite party No.2. On tracking the aforesaid ID no result was found. The son of the complainant inquired from opposite party No.2 about the result of the application, then opposite party No.2 replied that his application was cancelled by the embassy but opposite party No.2 did not give any reason for the said cancellation. The complainant has hired the services of the opposite parties for study visa by paying an amount of ₹21,05,000/- and approached opposite party No.2 many a times for payment but for one reason or the other they continued to avoid payment and answer the questions. Thereafter opposite party No.5-Prit Pal Singh made an offer that the complainant should take an amount of ₹4,30,000/- against the total amount paid of ₹21,05,000/-, which was not acceptable to the complainant. The complainant made a representation to the Police Commissioner, Amritsar and the SHO, Police Station-Majitha Road, District Amritsar and the copies were also sent to opposite parties Nos.2 to 5 on their addresses but the same were received back with the report ‘not met’. The representation and receipt are Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 and the registered envelope which was received back is Ex.C-6 (colley). In fact, the cause of action has arisen to the complainant in December 2016 when initially the application was submitted and on various subsequent dates and from the date of legal notice dated 20.8.2018. Feeling aggrieved against the non-providing of service and the act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant allegedly suffered mental pain and agony. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the present complaint has been filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to the opposite parties.

Defence of Opposite Parties:

4. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply through opposite party No.5 in which contents of para nos.1 to 3 of the complaint were admitted. However, the contents of para no.4 of the complaint were denied. It has been submitted that opposite party No.2 never gave an assurance that opposite party No.2 would provide guaranteed study visa. Rather it was told to the complainant that they will provide the service for facilitating the study visa to the son of the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant paid a sum of ₹21,05,000/- to the opposite parties but the material facts have been concealed. It is further submitted that the bank account of the son of the complainant; namely, Kirpal Singh was opened in Axis Bank, Majitha Branch with the address of the school of the opposite parties as he was not having any account in Majitha. As lot of money was involved and there was a risk of carrying the same, so they wanted that the account should be opened in Majitha specifically in the school address of the opposite parties. The documents are false and fabricated. Tarundeep Singh was not involved in the business of opposite party No.1. The receipt provided by opposite party No.2 was with respect to the College referring to the fee to be paid by the complainant for admission for first semester. Various e-mails were sent to the complainant’s son. The opposite parties have provided the best service to the complainant. As a goodwill they wanted to pay ₹4,30,000/- as GIC, which was yet to be refunded by the concerned authorities. The complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed. The amount of ₹5,21,925/- was transferred to the account of the son of the complainant by the said Bank. Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service on their part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

Replication of the complainant:

5. The complainant filed replication controverting the averments made in the reply filed by opposite parties and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. It has been submitted that the complainant was compelled to approach this Commission as the opposite parties denied to give back the original documents of his son and paid only meager amount. The account of the son of the complainant was opened in good faith in order to facilitate the requirement of the opposite parties. Otherwise the complainant’s son is living in Ferozepur and could have opened his account in his hometown to do the needful. It is admitted that the son of the complainant firstly got admission in the Lambton College in Canada. The admission had to be withdrawn, as the visa application of the son of the complainant applied by the opposite parties had been rejected. The son of the complainant strongly denied the signatures on the withdrawal application produced by opposite parties as Ex.P3. The signature is totally different from the signatures depicted in other documents like PAN card and scan copy of passport. Opposite party No.2 created fake e-mail account of the son of the complainant

Evidence of the Parties:

6. In order to prove his case the complainant annexed with the complaint his own unattested affidavit dated 15.9.2018 and documents Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2, Ex.C2A to Ex.C2E and Ex.C3 to Ex.C6. Along with the replication the complainant further annexed documents Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8, translated copy of negotiation held on 14.8.2018 as Ex.C-9 and a CD of phone call recording with opposite party No.3 as Ex.C-10. The complainant filed M.A. No.306 of 2019 for placing on record the transcript copy of the Compact Disc as Ex.C-10A, which was allowed, vide order dated 26.2.2019. A copy of rejection order dated 5.1.2019 of the Canadian Embassy has been produced as Ex.C-11. On the other hand, the opposite parties annexed with their reply the affidavit of Pritpal Singh, opposite party No.5 along with documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8.

Contentions of the Parties:

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through their respective averments and the evidence produced by them in support of those averments. We have also gone through the written submissions made by the complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant in addition to written submissions also made oral arguments. It was submitted that the opposite parties admitted the receipt of the amount of ₹21,05,000/- paid by the complainant for getting study visa for his son, which is clear from Ex.C-2 to Ex.C2E. The opposite parties misused the documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 relating to the admission of the son of the complainant in first semester in Lambton College of Canada, which was withdrawn by them as they used the e-mail account generated by them in order to facilitate the communication with the said College. The application for withdrawal and signatures were also prepared by them. It was further submitted that the opposite parties took an amount of ₹21,05,000/- in lieu of guaranteed study visa, which was paid by the complainant by selling his property. All the original documents regarding visa are still in possession of the opposite parties. The opposite parties misrepresented the Canadian Embassy to which the file of the son of the complainant for study visa was put. The complainant’s son received information from the Canadian Government regarding imposition of ban of five years on the son of the complainant. The opposite parties looted the complainant and his son in order to provide guaranteed visa from the Canadian Government. The whole money has been spoiled and the future of the son of the complainant has been put in dark to face the ban of five years. Out of ₹21,05,000/- the complainant has only received ₹7,50,000/- from foreign bank accounts. The complainant wanted to settle the matter through negotiation and a representation in this regard was sent to the opposite parties, but they refused to receive the same intentionally. The act and conduct of the opposite parties firstly in not getting the study visa from the Canadian Government for the son of the complainant and secondly in not refunding the whole of the amount deposited by the complainant not only amount to deficiency in service but also adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, which certainly caused harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant and his son. In the end, it has been prayed that the present complaint be allowed and the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of ₹13,55,000/-, as balance amount along with interest @ 18% per annum from the different dates of deposits till the actual realization along with compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment, mental agony, pain and litigation expenses.

9. Per contra it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that opposite parties never gave any assurance regarding providing of guaranteed study visa. They had only promised to provide better services for facilitating the study visa to the son of the complainant. The application for grant of study visa for the son of the complainant along with documents and requisite fees etc. was duly submitted by the opposite parties with the Canadian Embassy. The son of the complainant was duly admitted in Lambton College, Canada. However, the son of the complainant withdrew his admission from the said College due to personal financial hardship as his father was not in a position to pay his expenses for study in Canada because his business was going down. The same is proved from the documents Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. The GIC is a minimum sum of money which has to be in a student’s account for his sustenance and it is necessary to deposit that amount. The opposite parties had no part in refunding that amount as it had to be transferred by the bank to the account of the son of the complainant. The amount of GIC to the tune of ₹5,21,925/- was transferred to the account of the son of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Consideration of Contentions:

10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for both the sides.

12. So far as the opening of the account of the son of the complainant by the opposite parties is concerned, that has been done with a specific motive because the Bank is itself in the School of the opposite parties in Majitha. The amount could have been deposited from the other banks of the native place of the complainant. We are of the view that certainly there was deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, who indulged in tricking the innocent and gullible villagers under the garb that they will get their admission in Canada and thereafter they may settle in that country.

13. So far as the plea of the opposite parties that the son of the complainant himself had withdrawn his admission due to personal financial hardship as his father was not in a position to pay his expenses for study in Canada because his business was going down, vide Ex.P-3 is concerned, the complainant specifically denied his signatures on this document in his replication. The opposite parties have produced no evidence what to talk of expert evidence to prove the same and the complainant had already paid ₹21,05,000/- to the opposite parties and, as such, in the absence of any evidence this plea of the opposite parties is not acceptable and is rejected herewith.

14. The opposite parties must have spent some amount on account of preparing the documents and sending the same to the Canadian Embassy. Therefore, a sum of ₹50,000/- is held to be the amount spent by the opposite parties for processing and dealing the case of the complainant with the Canadian Embassy for grant of study visa. Admittedly out of ₹21,05,000/- the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties, an amount of ₹7,88,921/- has been transferred in the account of the son of the complainant. After deducting the amount of ₹50,000/- on account of documentation and processing charges spent by the opposite parties the net amount comes to ₹12,66,079/-. Hence it is held that the complainant suffered a net loss of ₹12,66,079/-, besides mental tension, harassment and mental agony. In addition to this the son of the complainant has also suffered precious years of the career of his life. Hence it is held that the complainant is entitled to the refund of ₹12,66,079/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which will also take care of the mental tension, harassment and the loss of precious years of the career of the son of the complainant.

15. In view of our above discussion the complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties jointly and severally:-