Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/541/2023

PARMOD KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOROFY EDUCATION SERVICE - Opp.Party(s)

SAHIL SINGLA

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/541/2023
Date of Institution	:	17.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	05.11.2024

 

Parmod Kumar Singh s/o Sh.Tilak Singh r/o H.No.3/659, Himmatgarh, Dhakola, Zirakpur, Mohali.

...Complainant

Versus

Gorofy Education Services through its Manager, SCO 391, Top Floor, Sector 37-D, Above ICICI Bank, Chandigarh -160036.

...Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sahil Singla, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1.         The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that in the first week of August, 2022, the complainant came across an agent of the OP who explained about the good salary package abroad with minimum charges.  Accordingly, he visited the office of OP where the agent of the OP had explained the benefits of working abroad and to live a high standard life with good income with minimum pay scale of $21 per hour. On the persuasion of the said agent, the complainant showed  his interest in the said offer and the OP informed him that they will charge an amount of ₹4.40 lakhs as a whole package, out of which he has to deposit ₹40,000/- in advance to the OP and rest ₹4.00 lakhs will be deducted from his salary account. On this, the complainant had paid an amount of ₹40,000/- in advance to the OP i.e. ₹30,000/- in cash and ₹10,000/- through NEFT. However, the OP gave receipt of ₹20,000/- only. The copies of the payment slips and bank statement are Annexures C-2 and C-3.  He was also assured by the OP that he will fly to abroad within 45 days. However, after expiry of 45 days, he did not get any response from the OP and on enquiry, he was directed to pay ₹2.00 lakhs extra on account of change in foreign policy. As the complainant had shown his inability to pay the aforesaid amount, he requested for the refund of the paid amount on finding that the OP was unable to render promised services to him. Since then the complainant had been requesting the OP to refund the aforesaid amount but instead of refunding the deposited amount, the OP insulted him in its office. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OP was properly served and when OP did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 27.06.2024.
2.        In order to prove claim, the complainant has proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3.        We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that on the assurances of the OP, he had paid an amount of ₹40,000/-, out of the total amount of ₹4.40 lakhs for arranging his job in abroad, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint.
   2. In order to prove the fact that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹40,000/- in advance to the OP, the complainant has only proved the receipt dated 27.08.2022 of ₹20,000/- (Annexure C-2), having been issued by the OP. In addition to that the complainant has also proved the copy of the bank statement (Annexure C-3), which further indicates that an amount of ₹10,000/- was also remitted by the complainant in the account of the OP on 26.10.2022. In this manner, it stands proved on record that in fact the complainant had only paid an amount of ₹30,000/- to the OP especially when the complainant has failed to prove on record if an amount of ₹10,000/- was also paid by him to the OP.
   3. As the entire evidence led by the complainant in order to prove that the OP has failed to render the promised services i.e. to arrange job in abroad for the complainant for which OP had received an amount of ₹30,000/- in advance from the complainant, out of the total amount of ₹4.40 lakhs and the same is un-rebutted by the OP, it is safe to hold that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
4.        In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
   1. to pay ₹30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the respective dates of its deposit i.e. 27.08.2022 and 26.10.2022 onwards.
   2. to pay ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
   3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
5.        This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6.         Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

5/11/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member

cmg