Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/667/2017

Manish Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kingsway Immigration and overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Jaimini Tiwari Adv.

26 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	667 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	04.09.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	26.03.2018

 

 

 

 

Manish Chauhan, aged 26 years, S/o Sh.Hansa Singh, R/o 80, Ram Vihar, Baltana, Distt. SAS Nagar, Punjab.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

Kingsway Immigration and Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., SCO 118-119, Level-4, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

   ….. Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

                               

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Ms.Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Kulwant Singh, Advocate

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant hired the service of Opposite Party for getting an  enrollment in Foreign University for Diploma Programme in Hotel Management and accordingly paid registration fee of Rs.11,500/- on 22.11.2016.  It is averred that after completing his graduation, the complainant submitted all requisite documents with Opposite Party for admission process in foreign university.  Thereafter, the complainant paid admission fee of 4500 Euros (Rs.3 lakh) through cheque dated 7.12.2016, Rs.16,000/- through cheque dated 23.12.2016 and Rs.80,500/-through  NEFT to the Opposite Party (Ann.C-1).  The copy of fee receipts, offer letter dated 13.2.2017 from KES College, Nicosia, Cyprus both have been annexed as C-2 & C-3.  It is submitted that the complainant was supposed to fly on 22.2.2017 (Ann.C-5) from Delhi to Doha and Doha to Larnaca.  It is also submitted that when the complainant visited the Opposite Party to collect his documents submitted with it, he was shocked to know that his Passport has been misplaced by the officials of the Opposite Party.  Accordingly, a DDR was registered with the Police.  However, on 1.3.2017, the Passport was returned to the complainant by the Opposite Party and thereafter, the complainant got cancelled the DDR (Ann.C-4 & C-4A).  It is stated that because of carelessness and unprofessional act & conduct of the Opposite Party, the complainant could not pursue his diploma course at Cyprus and as such suffered, mentally, physical and financially as well.  It is also stated that the complainant also visited the Opposite Party for getting the refund of the amount deposited with it, but the Opposite Party did not refund anything even though the said university had refunded the fee. it.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that a total amount of Rs.3,62,029/- was paid by the complainant against the agreed Rs.3,75,000/-, which included fee of the college in Cyprus, consultation charges, air ticket and other necessary charges to be incurred on sanctioning of the student visa.  It is stated that the Opposite Party has narrated all terms & conditions and affidavit/declaration was also signed by the complainant in which he himself accepted that his education consultant shall not be responsible for any refund of fee (Ann.R-1 & R-2).  It is also stated that the complainant paid the fee directly to the College through NEFT on 9.2.2017 and the same was confirmed on 10.2.2017. It is further stated that on 20.2.2017, the complainant came to the office of Opposite Party and he collected all his documents including passport, visa papers, air ticket, but he did not make the payment of balance amount of Rs.12,971/- & made promise to pay later on.  However, later on the complainant intended to cancel his programme as he did not want to move to Cyprus on study visa.  It is submitted that the complainant was narrated all the consequences qua the refund policy of the Opposite Party including the prospective financial loss, to which the complainant agreed.  It is also submitted that to cover up his misdeed, the complainant has lodged a DDR No.36 on 25.2.2017 with regard to loss of his passport.  It is further submitted that in the affidavit on the basis of which the said DDR was lodged, the complainant himself stated that he has lost the passport at Sector 34, Chandigarh on 18.2.2017.  It is pleaded that on the complainant’s request the Opposite Party agreed to bear expenses for extension of student visa of complainant for next session and on the request of Opposite Party, the college has granted a letter of acceptance on 30.3.2017.  , but later on the complainant refused to go abroad on student visa (Ann.R-3).  However, the College on the request of the complainant forwarded by Opposite Party, refunded the fee of Rs.2,30,850/- after making necessary deductions (Ann.R-4).  Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

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

 

5]       From the reply filed by the Opposite Party, it sounds that the reply in question is only manipulated and concocted one.  Though, the Opposite Party has submitted that the complainant received his original documents including disputed Passport but failed to establish on record the delivery of the same to the complainant under any receipts or undertaking. 

 

6]       The defence put forth by the Opposite Party that the complainant himself  was not interested to move Cyprus for some personal reasons and thus not boarded the Plane on 22.2.2017 and concocted a wrong story about the loss of the Passport by the Opposite Party, is not tenable for the reasons recorded hereunder;

 

7]       The Cancellation Report, placed on record vide Ann.C-4/A as well the request for the refund made vide Ann.R-4 reflects that it was only due to the reason of loss of passport, the complainant could not board the plane on the scheduled date i.e. 22.2.2017.  In the Cancellation Report Ann.C-4/A, it is categorially mentioned that the Passport in question was traced out from the Immigration Office of the Opposite Party at Sector 34, Chandigarh & also was recorded in the FIR that it got lost in Sector 34. The Opposite Party nowhere challenged such cancellation report being false.  It is only to avoid liability, the Opposite Party tried to shift their burden/blame on the complainant claiming falsely that the complainant himself was not interested to leave India.  This plea of the Opposite Party is also not sustainable keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the complaint, which reveals that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party on 22.11.2016 and paid all the due amount on respective dates till 13.2.2017 (Ann.C-2). Had the complainant not been interested to pursue further, he would not have deposited such huge amount with the Opposite Party till 13.2.2017 and too when only few days were left to his visit to Cyprus.  However, the Opposite Party itself claimed that the complainant received the documents including the Passport on 20.2.2017, divulging that he was interested to board the plane to join the course.     Had   the complainant  not been interested to pursue his course in Cyprus, then he would have applied for the refund immediately and well in time and was not required to wait till April, 2017, when the complainant sought the refund of his amount so paid to the Opposite Party.  Hence, the act & conduct of the OP constitute deficiency in service as well as shows its indulgence into unfair trade practice. 

 

8]       In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP is proved.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

[a] To refund an amount Rs.1,07,000/- to the complainant;

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing the complainant mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice by the OP;

[c] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.20,000/- apart from the above relief.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

26^th March, 2018                                                                                                                                                                     sd/-   

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER