STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 121 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 21.03.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 09.04.2013 |
1] West Highlander Immigration Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., SCO 23-24-25, Leavel-4, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Directors.
2] Ms. Parwinder Kaur, Director, West Highlander Immigration Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., SCO 23-24-25, Level-4, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh
3] Mr. Gurvinder Singh Kang, Director, West Highlander Immigration Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., SCO 23-24-25, Level-4, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
……Appellants/Opposite Parties.
Versus
Sh. Hardeep Singh S/o Sh. Simrat Singh, through his General Power of Attorney holder i.e. Sh. Simrat Singh S/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh, R/o H.No.1, Gurmukh Niwas, near SBI, Kalachuk Gangyal, Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir, India.
….Respondent/Complainant.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Ms. Venuka Kumaria, Advocate for the appellants.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.01.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint of the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties, as under: -
“9] In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is writ large. Thus, the complaint must succeed. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to pay the currency value of 7151 Canadian Dollars to the complainant taking the exchange rate as of today i.e. 10.01.2013, paid as fee to the said Institute through them. The OPs are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental & physical harassment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall pay the currency value of 7151 Canadian Dollars to the complainant taking the exchange rate as of today i.e. 10.01.2013 and compensation of Rs.50,000/-, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 09.08.2012 till its actual payment, apart from paying litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.”
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant availed of the services of Opposite Parties, for admission to Sheridan Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, Ontario, Canada and paid the requisite fee of Rs.8,000/-. It was stated that the Opposite Parties, promised to get admission as also Visa for the said course, and in case of non-grant of Visa, it was their responsibility to get the refund of total fee, from the said College, as they were the recognized agents of the said Institute. It was further stated that on 4.3.2010, Sheridan College issued a letter of acceptance, in favour of the complainant, for admission into PCPEN-Computer Engineering Technician, Davis Campus, through the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that on 14.4.2010, Full Time International Fee Invoice 2010-11 was forwarded to the complainant by the Opposite Parties, and he deposited 7166 CAD (Canadian Dollars), amounting to Rs.3,27,070/- per conversion rate prevalent on 18.6.2010. It was further stated that since the admission in the Institute was confirmed, the complainant, on the advice of Opposite Parties, applied for student Visa and submitted his application, before the High Commission of Canada. It was further stated that the Visa Application of the complainant was denied by the High Commission of Canada vide letter dated 12.8.2010. It was further stated that the complainant asked the Opposite Parties, to seek refund of his fee, from the said Institute, on account of denial of Visa. It was further stated that on the asking of the Opposite Parties, the complainant wrote letter dated 14.9.2010 to the said College, and forwarded it to the Opposite Parties, through email. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, informed that they had sent the relevant email of refund of fee to the Sheridan Institute on 17.9.2010, but when he (complainant) did not receive the refund, he approached the Opposite Parties, but they did not give any response. It was further stated that the complainant subsequently wrote to the Sheridan Institute directly, which informed that it did not receive any email, from the Opposite Parties, for refund of fees. It was further stated that the Institute also informed that if the agent had sent the email on 17.9.2010, then the complainant would get the refund. It was further stated that the complainant again approached the Opposite Parties, and sought their help, but they ignored, upon which, a legal notice was sent by the complainant, but to no effect. 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), directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.3,27,000/- alongwith interest for the loss suffered by him due to non refund of the fees; payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation on account of damages and mental harassment and costs of litigation, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, stated that the complainant had contact with Mr. Ajay, who had approached them, to forward his case to Canada. It was further stated that in-fact the Opposite Parties, did not have direct contact with the complainant nor he visited their office. It was further stated that the visa of the complainant was rejected by the Embassy and the Opposite Parties, had only forwarded his file. It was further stated that necessary information was given to the agent of the complainant from time to time, who was having direct contact with complainant. It was further stated that after the rejection of visa, Opposite Parties, sent an email to the agent of the complainant on 20.8.2010 with the request to give an application for refund of fee, in the handwriting of the complainant himself. It was further stated that after receiving the said email, the agent of the complainant kept silent and the Opposite Parties, never received any response, on behalf of the complainant, as alleged. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, had forwarded the email to the agent of complainant and the complainant had no agreement or contact with the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that no assessment form was signed by the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, had not received email dated 15.9.2010, as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that the College could refund the fee on the handwritten request application duly signed by the applicant (complainant), but no answer about the same, was received from his agent. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of his case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, submitted that the District Forum grossly erred in directing the appellants/Opposite Parties, to pay the Indian currency value of 7151 Canadian Dollars to the respondent/complainant by taking the exchange rate as on 10.01.2013. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant was having contact with Mr. Ajay, who had approached the appellants/Opposite Parties, for forwarding the case of the complainant, to Canada. It was further submitted that in-fact, neither the appellants/Opposite Parties, had direct contact with the respondent/complainant, nor he (complainant) himself visited their office. It was further submitted that the Visa of the complainant, was rejected by the Embassy. It was further submitted that being the Consultancy, the appellants/ Opposite Parties, only forwarded the case filed of the respondent/complainant and the necessary information was given to his (complainant) agent, from time to time, who was in direct contact with his client (complainant). It was further submitted that the District Forum also ignored the fact that the appellants/Opposite Parties, had sent an email dated 20.08.2010 to the agent of the respondent/ complainant requesting him, to give a hand written request by the respondent/complainant, after rejection of his Visa, but the same was not submitted. It was further submitted that even, no request for refund was received from the complainant, through his agent. However, the email dated 15.09.2010 was never received by the appellants/Opposite Parties. It was further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact, while passing the impugned order, that the complainant was guilty of concealing the facts and had concocted a false story. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, or indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the appellants/Opposite Parties. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, being unsustainable, in the eyes of law, be set aside.
9. A bare perusal of the Letter of Acceptance (Annexure C-2), placed, on record, of the District Forum file, proves that the respondent/complainant was in direct contact with the appellants/ Opposite Parties, as this letter of acceptance, issued by Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advance Learning alongwith Full Time International Fee Invoice 2010-2011 (Annexure C-3), in his favour, was sent to him, through them (appellants/Opposite Parties). Admittedly, the Student Payment Receipt (Annexure C-4), issued by the said Institute in favour of the respondent/complainant, was also sent to the appellants/Opposite Parties. As the whole correspondence including the deposit of fee etc., was made through the appellants/Opposite Parties, in the capacity of agent, therefore, they were duty bound, to seek refund of fee of the complainant, deposited through them, with Sheridan College, on rejection of his Visa, which they (appellants/Opposite Parties), failed to do. However, the appellants/Opposite Parties, could not escape their liability on the ground that the refund of free, from the College, was to be sought by the complainant himself by making a request in writing, for the same. The submission of Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, that the District Forum directed the appellants/Opposites, to pay the Indian currency value of 7151 Canadian Dollars to the complainant taking the exchange rate as on 10.01.2013, also has no force, as the respondent/complainant, was deprived of his money from 12.08.2010 (the date of rejection of his Visa by the Embassy) and nothing has been paid to him till date. Therefore, this act of appellants/Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also unfair trade practice on their part. The District Forum rightly appreciated all these facts and as such, the impugned order, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
10. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.
12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
9th April, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.121 of 2013)
Argued by:Ms. Venuka Kumaria, Advocate for the appellants.
Dated the 9th day of April, 2013.
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT |
Ad
