BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.226 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.05.2015

Date of Decision :12.10.2015

Gurpreet Singh son of Satnam Singh R/o VPO Baddon, Tehsil Garshankar, Hoshiarpur-144404.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M.K.Educational & Immigration Services Pvt Ltd through Director Mohan Lal Kakkar.

2. Mohan Lal Kakkar C/o M.K.Educational & Immigration Services Pvt Ltd., Krishna Complex, Preet Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Smt.Santosh Kaur, Auth.Rep.of complainant.

Sh.VB Mehta Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that he is a student and with aim of studying in Australia, he went to M.K.Overseas alongwith his maternal aunt in the month of November 2014 for consultancy. There, they met Mohan Kakkar, CO and Miss Neha as consultant. He showed his academic transcripts and she told them that his academic record is good and they will help them to get visa for March intake in duration of 2/3 months. They decided to apply through M.K.Overseas and next day, they went there alongwith original documents and said Neha told them to submit their original documents alongwith application form. She told that their total processing fee is Rs.30,000/- and they take Rs.15000/- in advance and remaining Rs.15000/- after visa. He gave his original documents to them alongwith Rs.15000/- vide receipt. She told that he will receive offer letter within 15-21 days. It was more than one month, but he did not receive his offer letter. Then he alongwith his family went there and told them that they are doing nothing, so to give them their advance payment and documents. They misguided them and stated that they will bring his offer letter within two days. He was not convinced and took all the documents from them and told them to give him back the advance payment but they refused to do so. Then after two days, they called him back and stated that ZBA, Melbourne has accepted his case and issued him offer letter of three year diploma course in business under 572 visa subclass with 100% visa surety according to latest Australian rules and they decided to proceed further. Then Miss Maninder told them further procedure and explained all the financial requirements and tuition fees charges for the first semester. She told them to show 16 Lacs INR as funds and to pay 14400 Australian Dollars as first semester fee including Overseas Health Insurance and they paid Rs.7,77,000/- on 7.1.2015 through Punjab & Sind Bank. They further charged Rs.2500/- for notary and Rs.500/- for affidavits and he paid Rs.3000/- to them and started waiting for confirmation of enrollment from ZBA, Melbourne. It is further alleged that ultimately they told him that embassy has rejected 572 subclass visa, so they will apply under 573 subclass and for this they need to apply for another offer letter from the university and that university will issue him the offer letter within a week time. They further told him that the fees paid will be adjusted according to new offer letter from the university without any problem. They started fooling them with fake interview calls, fake promises and after two weeks he again went there and they were again twisted everything with their lies and fake promises. Then on February 19, he received a call from Miss Maninder. She told him that university has rejected his case. It is further alleged that he personally sent a email to ZBA, Melbourne regarding refund of his fee and they replied and refunded his fees on 15.4.2015. The amount paid by him was Rs.7,77,990/- and amount that has been transfered was Rs.7,45,000/-. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of advance amount of Rs.15,000/- and further Rs.3000/- paid by him for notary and affidavits and Rs.40,000/- received less on account of fee. He has also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that Gurpreet Singh had visited the office of the opposite parties and wanted to go to Australia on student visa. It was made clear to the complainant that the fee of Rs.15000/- which is being charged is non refundable and the service charges for processing the case of the complainant. Service charges are necessary for the opposite parties as they have to spend and meet the expanses of the office, salary of staff, electricity bill, stationary and the same include consultation. All sincere efforts were made by the opposite parties for arranging the student offers from Australian Education Providers, copies of the correspondence through emails is attached. To accept or reject the case of every individual is the discretion of the Australian Education Providers. The opposite parties can not be blamed for this. All office staff had been helping them to get the required offer letters as well as ECOEs for filing visa applications for the complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties have arranged offer letters from two Education Providers of New Zealand on request of the complainant, the copies of the offer letter are enclosed. The fee in Australian dollars was directly sent to the university by the complainant. And the same in full received back. Charges of Rs.2500/- and Rs.500/- were the expenses incurred by the complainant on stamp paper, typing and attestation by the notary public. The opposite parties have nothing to do with the tuition fee sent by the complainant and refund of tuition fee sent by the university. Same fee in Australian dollars has been returned by the university. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, authorized representative of complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP40 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the authorized representative of complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The authorized representative of the complainant contended that the complainant wanted to get admission in James University Brisbane, Australia but the opposite parties processed his case for ZBA, Melbourne and the complainant was not interested to get admission in ZBA, Melbourne. She contended that the opposite parties have misled the complainant and the amount of Rs.15000/- received by them as consultancy fee is liable to be refunded. She further contended that the amount received by the opposite parties for notary attestation and affidavits is also liable to be refunded. She further contended that complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- received less by him on account of refund of admission fee from the ZBA, Melbourne. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the opposite parties charged Rs.15,000/- as consultancy fee which is non refundable and this fact is specifically mentioned on the receipt. He further contended that ZBA, Melbourne rejected the case of the complainant for his own fault. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. Ex.C4 is receipt regarding payment of Rs.15,000/- by the complainant to the opposite parties and on this receipt it is specifically mentioned "Non Refundable". The version of the authorized representative of the complainant that the complainant wanted to get admission in James University, Brisbane can not be accepted as in the complaint, the complainant has no where pleaded this fact. On the other hand, the complainant has specifically pleaded that then after two days, they called him back and stated that ZBA, Melbourne has accepted his case and issued him offer letter of three year diploma course in business under 572 visa subclass with 100% visa surety according to latest Australian rules and they decided to proceed further. So these pleadings of the complainant clearly shows that the complainant decided to get admission in ZBA, Melbourne. Ex.OP8 is form for admission in ZBA, Melbourne which is duly signed by the complainant. From the documents on record, it is evident that the opposite parties processed the case of the complainant for his admission in ZBA, Melbourne. The fee was paid by the complainant directly to ZBA, Melbourne and on his request vide letter dated Ex.OP12 the same was refunded. The difference in amount could be on account of variation in exchange rate. The opposite parties have produced letter dated 5.12.2014 Ex.OP18 and from the perusal of the same it is evident that ZBA, Melbourne has given offer to the complainant. In this letter, it is specifically mentioned that

"Please find attached the followings:-

1. ZBA International Student Offer & Acceptance Agreement.

2. Victoria University International Student Offer & Acceptance Agreement.

Please send the following documents/information to the email address accept@vusydney.edu.au and apply@zba.new.edu.au in order to process the enrollment.

1. Letter of offer signed by the student;

2. Proof of payment;

3. Certified copy of the applicant passport;

4. Payment Details".

7. The opposite parties have arranged the offer letter as is evident from letter dated 5.12.2014 Ex.OP7. The case of the complainant was rejected for which the opposite parties can not be blamed. Ex.OP14 is letter written by the complainant for refund of fee wherein it is mentioned as under:-

"I Gurpreet Singh D.O.B 13.3.1996, R/o Baddan, Teh.Garhshankar, Hoshiarpur, Pin:144404, Punjab, India had applied in your college but unfortunately I did not meet the genuine temporary entrance.

Kindly arrange for the refund of my tuition fees in my Cousin Bother's account. I provide him authority to receive my tuition fee on my behalf. The account detail is provided in the refund form".

8. So according to the own admission of the complainant, he did not meet the genuine temporary entrance criteria and himself asked for refund of fee. From the various documents produced by the opposite parties it is evident that they have processed the case of the complainant for his admission in ZBA, Melbourne. If the complainant did not get admission and visa, the opposite parties can not be blamed. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.10.2015 Member Member President