Haryana

StateCommission

A/520/2016

CHANDAN CHOPRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

IELTS - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT CHANDEL

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      520 of 2016

Date of Institution:      08.06.2016

Date of Decision :       17.08.2016

 

Chandan Chopra s/o Sh. Satish Chopra, Resident of 3, Hamel ST, Albion, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia-3020

Through attorney Shri Ashok Chopra s/o late Shri Bal Krishan Chopra, N-83, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

IELTS, Head Office: IDP Education India Private Limited, 6^th Floor, Plot No.32, Global Business Square, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122003, Haryana, India.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Rohit Chandel, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated November 24^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by him, was dismissed being barred by limitation.

2.                Chandan Chopra-complainant (appellant herein), filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986’) averring that he availed the services of IDP Education India Private Limited, which is an authorised institute for conducting International English Language Testing System (IELTS)-Opposite Party (respondent herein). The opposite party allotted a centre for test on 10.12.2011. The complainant appeared in the said test and the opposite party declared the result as ‘successful’. The complainant applied for Visa but same was refused on the ground that the result of the test for which the complainant had appeared, was cancelled on the ground that someone impersonated the complainant. It was submitted that the candidate had placed photograph and signature were also obtained before beginning of the test.

3.                The District Forum dismissed the complaint at the admission stage being barred by limitation observing that the cause of action had arisen firstly on 10.12.2011 and secondly on 14.02.2012 when report was sent to the complainant. However, the instant complaint was filed on 18.11.2015, that is, beyond the period of two years as provided in Section 24A of the Act, 1986.

4.                Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant-complainant had applied for Visa in the year 2012, which was refused on 09.06.2015 by the Australian Embassy and Migration Review Tribunal. Therefore, the complaint was within time.

5.                The contention raised is not tenable. As per complainant’s own version, the test was held on 10.12.2011 and there being report about impersonation, the complainant was issued show-cause notice on 14.02.2012 vide which he was asked to submit his statement which he did not. Consequently, his result was cancelled vide letter dated 12.03.2012 which the complainant has placed on the file and reads as under:-

“We refer to your IELTS test dated 10^th Dec 2011, Test Report Form (TRF) number 11INOS4059TC855G, and the notification of investigation letter sent to you on 14/2/2012. 

Strict quality control procedures are in place to protect the integrity and security of the IELTS test. As a result of these procedures, your test scores for the 10^th Dec 2011 have come under scrutiny and have been investigated. The notification of investigation letter sent to you on 14/2/2012 invited you to submit a statement towards the investigation, however no statement has been received from you to date.

The IELTS application form which you signed states:

• Candidates must not impersonate another person or have another person impersonate them and if they do may be liable to prosecution.
• The IELTS test results will be disqualified if the rules are broken.
• The IELTS test fees will not be refunded
• The IELTS partners may inform any organization to whom candidates have submitted their IELTS Test Results.

The following actions have been taken:

• A report has been made to the IELTS Test partners.
• The result has been cancelled. This means the scores have been altered to zero in each of the band scores and overall band score and these are the scores that will be viewed on the on-line verification site for Stakeholder/Receiving Organization.
• The Receiving Organization has been advised of the cancellation of your result in accordance with the Declaration on the IELTS Application Form.”

6.                The cause of action is the cancellation of result of IELTS test and not the rejection or refusal of Visa. Letter dated 12.03.2012 reproduced above clearly indicates that the notification of cancellation of result was intimated to the complainant on 12.03.2012. Therefore, certainly, the cause of action to the complainant is the cancellation of the result and not the refusal of the Visa. Otherwise also, the opposite party-respondent has no concern with Australian Embassy which grants Visa.  

7.                Additionally, it is complainant’s own case itself that the complainant is working in Australia. Thus, certainly the complainant has gone to Australia on grant of Visa and not otherwise, may be on some other type of Visa. The fact remains that he has gone to Australia.

8.                In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced 17.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL