DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                 Consumer Complaint No.533 of 2016

                                         Date of institution:  01.09.2016                                                Date of decision   :  24.07.2017

Manjit Singh son of Swaranjit Singh, resident of 27-C, SST Complex, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                ….Complainant

                                Versus

Inspire Education Consultant, SCF 75, Ist Floor, Sector 65, Phase-11, Mohali through its Prop.

                                                                …..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Harpinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                OP ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant Manjit Singh had filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant approached the OP for school visa for his son namely Rajveer Singh Sikand for Canada. The OP assured the complainant that it is duly authorised by the Govt. of Punjab for business of travel agency/consultancy/ticketing agent/coaching institute of IELTS etc. etc. The OP assured that it will get the schooling visa for the son of the complainant and that it will also get the parent/guardian visa for the complainant and his wife.  On 21.09.2015 the OP received Rs.22,000/- from the complainant for file charges and also obtained Rs.18,200/- vide cheque No.540011 dated 05.02.2015 as acceptance fee.  The OP also received Rs.1,70,000/- from the complainant in cash on account of fee of son of the complainant for the institution in Canada.  An amount of Rs.22,000/- in cash was charged from the complainant on account of funds maintenance charges, Rs.9500/- as visa charges and Rs.15,000/- as guardian fee but the OP did not give any receipt for these amounts. It was assured by the OP that if it failed to get the visa for the complainant, his wife and his son then the OP would refund the amount to the complainant. The OP failed to get the visa inspite of making so many visits and requests by the complainant and the OP showed its inability to get the visa issued in the name of son and wife as well as for the complainant. On demand of the complainant, the OP refunded Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and but retained an amount of Rs.1,06,700/- which it has failed to return inspite of many requests. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 27.07.2016 to the OP with a request to refund the amount. However, till date the OP has not made refund to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.1,06,700/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum; to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till realisation and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.             Notice sent to the OP was delivered upon it on 16.09.2016 but none appeared for it. Hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.11.2016.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1; copies of legal notice Ex.C-1; postal receipt Ex.C-2; receipt Ex.C-3 cheques Ex.C-4 and C-5 and agreement Ex.C-6.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on the assurance given by the OP that it can get the schooling visa for his son and guardian visa for the complainant and his wife, various amounts were paid by him to the OP. However, the OP could not arrange the schooling visa and guardian visa and ultimately refunded part of the amount. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that non refund of the total amount by the OP has caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant. 

6.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the counsel for the complainant. The complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C-3 to C-5 to show that he has made payment to the OP for schooling visa of his son in Canada. However, inspite of payment of the demanded amounts, the OP could not arrange the schooling visa for the son of the complainant and guardian visa for the complainant and his wife. On failure of the OP to get the schooling visa for the son of the complainant, the OP has refunded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. However, it has illegally retained the amount of Rs.1,06,700/- of the complainant without any justification. Refund of the part amount by the OP in itself shows that it had failed to get the schooling visa for the son of the complainant.  The OP has chosen not to appear and to contest the complaint despite delivery of notice upon it. Non appearance of the OP despite knowledge amounts to admission of the averments of the complaint on its part which shows that the OP has nothing to say in this regard.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is allowed against the OP with the direction to refund to the complainant Rs.1,06,700/- (Rs. One lakh six thousand seven hundred only) to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual refund.  The OP should also pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 24.07.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)

 President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member