BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No : 817 of 2009

Date  of  Institution   :  08.06.2009

                                       Date  of    Decision   :  08.02.2010

Ms.Bharti Sachdeva d/o Sh.Jatender Kumar, R/o H.No.C-7, PWD (B&R), Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Inscol Academy, SCO No.13, 14, 15, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

                                                          ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                     MEMBER

Argued by:          Sh.Ashok Bector, Advocate for complainant.

                             Sh.Rakesh Bhatia, Adv. for OP.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT.

                   Briefly put, the complainant in response to an advertisement of OP, approached them  for getting admission in Master of Nursing in UNE, Australia for Sept., 2008 Batch and paid Rs.10,000/- on 26.4.2008, Rs.2,90,000/- (7068AUD) on 28.6.2008 to University of New England through OP and besides it, she also paid medical fee of Rs.1100/- on 4.7.2008, Rs.25,000/- on 30.7.2008 as processing fee and Rs.19,000/- as Visa fee vide Ann.C-1 to C-4 respectively.  It is averred that OP gave an assurance to the complainant that all necessary formalities i.e. admission, Visa etc. would be completed on or before 1.8.2008.  OP informed the complainant vide Ann.C-5 that the courses for admission in Master of Nursing would start from 11.8.2008 for a duration of one year up to 30.6.2009 and as such complainant visited the OP for arranging Visa papers etc. but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and were able to arrange the Visa Papers only on 22.10.2008 due to which she could not get admission in the said course in UNE.  It is also averred that due to the above deficient act of OP the complainant had to suffer great mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss. She had to resign from her service as Clinical Instructor with Mata Sahib Kaur College of Nursing at Khara Highway, Balongi, Distt. Mohali in order to get admission in Master of Nursing in UNE, the University of New England.  It is further averred that after repeated requests and protest by the complainant, the OP refunded only just Rs.1,37,088/- on 31.1.2009 and obtained a letter under pressure from her.  However, complainant immediately sent a legal notice to OP but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been instituted.

2]                OP filed reply and took objection to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had already received the full and final settlement amount from them after due deductions of the University Claim, Inscol claim and health Insurance Cover & Course.   It is admitted that complainant was handed over the offer letter dated 20.5.2008.  The deposit of amount is also admitted.  It is stated that in the registration form signed by the complainant on 26.4.2008 (Ann.OP-2) it was mentioned that it was the responsibility of the candidate to meet other requirements of the foreign embassy for issue of Visa but inspite of repeated follow ups, the complainant took more than 37 days to complete the Visa documentation and as such the delay was on the part of complainant and not the OP.  It is also stated that OP took only 5 working days to process the file and to submit the Visa on 3.7.2008.  It is submitted that once the Visa has been filed, it is upto the Australian High Commission to grant the same or not.  However, the OP arranged the new Offer Letter and COE for the complainant based on which her Visa was granted only after her consent to join the next batch and the Visa was accordingly granted on 21.10.,2008, but she declined to join the course on 26.11.2008.  Denying rest of the allegations including any deficiency on their part, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

4]                We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have perused the record.    

5]                There is no dispute about it that the complainant engaged the services of the OP who obtained for her an offer of admission from the University of New England through Annexure C-5.  The course was to start on 11.08.2008.  This offer of admission was received on 20.05.2008.  However the student Visa for this course was applied on 3.07.2008 as is clear from the E-Business Systems print  out  now  marked  Annexure  C-14  and  was  not  received  till

11.08.2008 when the course started.  The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued on the basis of para 3 of the rejoinder that the OP undertook and assured the complainant that they would get the Visa on or before the start of the session i.e. upto 1.08.2008 but they failed to do so. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the OP is that the delay occurred due to the late submission of the documents by the complainant, whereas the contention of the complainant is that infact she had submitted all the documents in time and even before Annexure C-5 was received but the OP delayed submitting of documents to the Australian Government till 3.07.2008.  The OP has not placed on file any such document which was submitted late by the complainant.  It is also the contention of the complainant that infact the OP was engaged by her for documentation and guidance to her and if there was any delay in preparing the documents or submitting the Visa papers to the Australian Government, it was due to the fault of the OP and not that of the complainant.  Their contention that some documents were not submitted by the complainant is not proved from any evidence nor the copies of those documents, which were submitted late, have been placed on file by the OP.  The OP has therefore made this a false ground to justify the delay in submitting the Visa papers.  Needless to mention that if the Visa papers had been submitted by the OP in time, she would have received the Visa before the starting of the session.  According to the parties, the Visa was received on 22.10.2008 long after the course had started.  The entire amount paid by the complainant therefore went waste due to the negligence of the OP. We are therefore of the opinion that the submission of Visa papers to the Australian Government was unnecessarily delayed by the OP. 

6]                It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the OP knew as to what time the Authorities take to grant Visa and if Visa could not be obtained in time by applying for the same on 3.07.2008, they should not have applied for Visa. On the one hand the OP delayed the matter and on the other hand they were taking the chance to apply so late that a Visa could not have been arranged/received within the short period, thus putting the complainant to a financial loss incurred on the expenses for obtaining Visa.  The OP had been engaged for rendering proper guidance and service to the complainant but instead of guiding her or giving proper service by advising her that she was not likely to get Visa and should apply next time, they rushed through the process, causing a financial loss to the complainant.

7]                The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that infact the OP has already refunded a sum of Rs 1,37,088/- on 31.01.2009 in full and final settlement of her claim.  The Learned Counsel has referred to Annexure OP/1 in this respect and has argued that the present complaint is misuse of the process of law, as the complainant has filed the complaint after the said settlement.  On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that infact the complainant had requested the OP several times after 11.08.2008 to refund the amount as mentioned in para number 4 of the complaint but they did not. She then applied to the OP on 11.10.2008 through Annexure C-6 again intimating that she was no longer interested in undertaking the said course as she had not received the Visa till then and requested the OP to withdraw the case and refund the amount. She also sent Annexure C-7 dated 11.10.2008 intimating to the OP that she would not be going for the course as her mother had died.  Again she wrote a letter dated 26.11.2008 Annexure C-8 requesting for the refund of the amount. Another letter Annexure C-9 was also issued by her on 26.11.2008.  However no amount was paid to her till 31.01.2009. The Learned Counsel argued that when she visited their office on 31.01.2009, she was compelled to write a letter Annexure OP/1 and accept the draft in full and final settlement of her claim.  As the OP was not paying even this amount and was harassing her whereby she was being asked to make rounds of their office time and again, she has no option but to sign on the dotted line.  However she on the same day sent a protest letter Annexure C-12 through registered post telling that her consent was taken by them under pressure and compulsion by threatening that if she was not going to write that sort of wording then they would not pay the said amount through the cheque.  She further mentioned that due to the said pressure she wrote the wording as per their wishes without any consent and intimated to them that the payment received was not complete and she was entitled to full refund of the amount.  When the OP did not pay the amount, she then served them a notice Annexure C-13, in which also this fact was mentioned in para number 5 of the notice. She filed the present complaint, in para number 7 of which also it was mentioned that after repeated requests and protests the OP refunded the amount on 31.01.2009(on the same day) and obtained the letter under protest but as soon as she was free from the clutches of the OP, she gave notice by registered letter dated 31.01.2009 to the effect that the letter so obtained from the complainant had been obtained under pressure.  It therefore cannot be said if the amount of Rs.1,37,088/- was received by her in full and final settlement of her claim.  She was rather compelled to write the letter, copy of which is Annexure OP/1 and the same cannot operate against her. The OP is therefore liable to refund the remaining amount also.

8]                It has been mentioned in para number 2 of the complaint that she paid Rs.10,000/- as registration charges, Rs.2,90,000/- was paid on 28.06.2008 to the University of New England, Rs.1,100/-  as medical fee and Rs.25,000/- on 30.07.2008.  She also paid Rs.19,000/- more as Visa fee.  In this manner a total of Rs.3,45,100/- was paid by her out of which she has received only Rs.1,37,088/-.  The remaining amount of Rs.2,08,012/- is still due from the OP which have not been refunded.  The OP should therefore refund the said amount.

9]                The complainant has placed on file Annexure C-10 showing that she was employed in Mata Sahib Kaur College of Nursing at Kharar Highway, Balongi, Distt. Mohali and was getting Rs.9,000/- per month  as salary. On 30.05.2008, itself, she submitted her one month resignation notice to take up the studies in University of New England, Australia.  Annexure C-11 is the copy of the notice, however she did not get the Visa till 20.10.2008. The contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant is that this loss of Rs.9,000/- per month occurred due to the negligence of the OP and therefore she is entitled to the same.  We are of the opinion that if the correct advice had been given by the OP to the complainant that she was late to apply or that she would not get the Visa upto 1.08.2008 or they had submitted the documents in time she would not have left the job. The complainant is therefore entitled to compensation for the loss @Rs.9,000/- per month for the period from 1.07.2008 to 31.01.2009 on which date the part amount was refunded to her.  The total amount computed comes out to (Rs.9,000x07months)= Rs.6,3000/-and the OP is liable to pay the same.

10]              The complainant has also prayed for a claim of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss(?) of mental agony and Rs.5,76,000/- for loss of the career.  The facts of the case may be recapitulated that the OP promised the complainant that she would be getting students Visa by 1.08.2008, she left the job and waited for the Visa which did not arrive in time.  She then requested the OP to cancel her candidature and refund the amount but they did not.  Repeated rounds of their office yielded only a sum of Rs.1,37,088/- for which also they forcibly obtained from her a letter Annexure OP/1 that the said amount would be towards full and final settlement.  She had to write a letter Annexure C-12 on the same day protesting about obtaining of the said letter.  Thereafter she had served a notice dated 17.02.2009 and ultimately filed the present complaint.  Needless to mention, that the OP compelled her to undergo mental tension and physical harassment, which could have been avoided.  The OP is therefore directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing her mental and physical harassment.

11]               In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,08,012/- and to pay Rs.6,3000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as worked out above alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation total Rs.3,76,012/- to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.06.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

                   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges.  The file be consigned.