Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/464/2023

ANUBHAV GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOVIZA EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS/ GOVIZA CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

ABHIMANYU KALSY

01 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/464/2023
Date of Institution	:	21.9.2023
Date of Decision	:	1/04/2024

 

Anubhav Gupta aged around 38 years S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta R/o H. No. 549, Sector 8-B, Chanidgarh - 160009.

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Goviza Educational Consultants / Goviza Consultants Private Limited, SCF 85, Top Floor, Sector 82, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab Through its Director Ritu Kumari,

2. Ritu Kumari Director of Goviza Educational Consultants / Goviza Consultants Private Limited, SCF 85, Top Floor, Sector 82, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab;

 

3. Meetu Director of Goviza Educational Consultants / Goviza Consultants Private Limited, SCF 85, Top Floor, Sector 82, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab

 Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ahbimanyu Kalsy, Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 34& 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  OPs No. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the OPs No.1  and are responsible for the management and day to day affairs of OP No.1, who engaged in consultancy service  to help and assist for getting VISA for various countries. The complainant who was desires to go Canada visited the office of OP No.1 for getting consultancy services for Canada VISA. After detailed discussion and deliberations the parties entered  into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 16.6.2022 and the same was signed by OPs NO.2&3 being Directors on behalf of OP No.1. As per MOU the OPs assured the complainant to arrange VISA  for Canada  within 6 months from the date of signing the MOU andthe total package of the said service was to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-,  out of which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to OP No.1. In addition to that the complainant had also paid an amount of Rs.6,000/- for approval or rejection of VISA  and the said fact was also mentioned in the MOU. The complainant had paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,00,000/- through two cheques dated 10.6.2022 of Rs.1,50,000/- each. Copy of statement of account and consent letter issued by OPs is annexed as Annexure C-2 and C-3 respectively.  The complainant had also paid an amount of Rs.20,000/-  on 10.9.2022  on account of package fee for consultancy service, which was acknowledged by the OP No.1 vide receipt Annexure C-4.  The complainant further paid an amount of Rs.30,000/-  to the OP No.1. The OPs had given a cheque Annexure C-5 bearing No.494156  of Yes Bank  for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-  as  according to MOU dated 16.6.2022 in case the OPs failed to provide the VISA to the complainant then the complainant will have the right to encash the said cheque.   Despite the complainant had completed all the formalities for getting the VISA, the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and whenever the complainant approached the OPs for the status of the VISA,  no  positive response  was received from them. Thereafter the complainant visited  the office of OPs  and kept waiting   for  the response of the OPs  but they failed to provide VISA as per MOU and the complainant  left with no other option except to present  the said cheque issued by the OPs for its encashment in the bank. However when the said cheque was presented  by the complainant for encashment the same was dishonoured  by the bank due to insufficient funds in the account of the OPs and the memo of dishonoured cheques is annexed as Annexure C-7.  Thereafter the OPs were again approached  by the complainant through whatsapp message but nothing was done by the OPs. In this manner,  the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 22.11.2023.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered/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  vide MOU  Annexure C-1  dated 16.6.2022  having been executed between the parties, the OPs had agreed to provide VISA to the complainant for Canada by doing all the formalities and for which the complainant had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-  being total package  amount for the said purpose and out of the aforesaid  agreed amount the complainant had firstly paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  through two different cheques  of Rs.1,50,000/- each  and  in addition to that he has also paid an amount of Rs.6,000/-  for approval or rejection of VISA and Rs.20,000/-  on 10.9.2022  on account of package fee and Rs.30,000/-  on the asking of the OPs and at that time as per MOU the OPs had also issued one cheque to the complainant with the understanding  that in case the OPs failed to provide VISA to the complainant, the complainant could get the  said cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- encashed and as the OPs had done nothing for getting the VISA of Canada for the complainant  till date and even did not respond to the requests of the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act  of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and for that purpose the documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1  MOU clearly indicates that the complainant had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the OPs for providing VISA to the complainant for Canada, out of which the complainant had paid  an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  as advance payment. Annexure C-2 is copy of statement of showing  advance amount was paid by the complainant to the OPs. Annexure C-3   is the consent letter  issued by the OP No.1  through which the OPs had  acknowledged the receipt of two cheques of Rs.1,50,000/- each issued by the complainant in their favour.  Annexure C-4   is the receipt of payment of Rs.20,000/-  issued by the OP No.1  to the complainant. Annexure C-5 is the copy of cheque issued by the OPs to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-  as per MOU executed between the parties  allowing the complainant to encash the same in case the OPs failed to get the VISA for the complainant. Annexure C-6   is  the memo which indicates that the complainant had presented the cheque issued by the OPs and Annexure C-7 is the return  memo report which shows that the cheque  issued by the OPs was  dishonoured  on account of inefficient fund.
   3. Annexure C-9 is the copy of whatsapp  chats exchanged between the parties which clearly indicate that the complainant has paid Rs.6000/- to  the OPs on their demand and also completed all the formalities as asked by the OPs, but the OPs despite of receiving huge amount from the complainant could not arrange VISA to the complainant.
   4. Thus one thing is clear from  entire evidence as discussed above led by the complainant and unrebutted by the OPs that the OPs have failed to arrange VISA  for the complainant despite of receiving huge amount of Rs.3,56,000/-  from the complainant and even the cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- issued by the OPs as per MOU to the complainant was dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds in the account of OPs. Thus, the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
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 ₹3,56,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from respective dates of deposit till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
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.

Announced 1/04/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member