1.    This appeal is filed by original complainant Nos.1 and 2 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 06/10/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum of Nagpur in consumer complaint No.171/2008, by which the said consumer complaint is dismissed

2.      The facts in brief giving rise to present appeal are as under.

          The complainant No.1 is the son of complainant No.2. The opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 is a school. The O.P.No.2 is a Education Society which runs the O.P.No.1/school. The O.P.No.3 is a Program Director of the aforesaid school. The O.P. had introduced an educational plan for the student who passed the 10 standard examination with minimum 50% marks. The proposed plan was named as “New Brunswick High School Programme” and its period was of 16 months consisting of four semesters. It was highlighted that the said plan is made in consultation with New Brunswick Department of Education at Canada. The O.P. had proposed that out of four semesters to be conducted within a period of 16 months, the first three semesters were to be conducted in India at Nagpur and the 4^th semester was to be conducted and held at Canada. It is alleged by the complainants that the O.P. had promised that they will take all responsibilities to send the students to Canada for their 4^th semester and they had accepted that it was their responsibility to apply for and obtained and provide students Visa for Canada for the students who took admission therein.

3.      The complainant No.1 had passed the standard 10^th Board Examination. The complainant No.2 paid the fees for admission of complainant No.1. The complainants alleged that fees of Rs.2,85,000/- was paid in installments towards tuition/term fee for three semesters to be conducted and held in India at Nagpur. The fee for 4^th semester was to be paid at Canada itself. The complainant No.1 attended the classes and cleared all the three semesters conducted at Nagpur and the O.Ps. issued mark sheets of said three semesters.

4.      It is alleged by the complainants that they were ready and willing to pay for the 4^th semester and to attend the same at Canada and that requisite documents were also handed over for Visa to the O.P. It is also alleged by them that despite of completing all due formalities by them, the O.P. failed to obtain visa for complainant No.1 and to send him to Canada to attend 4^th semester as was promised. Hence the complainant No.1 could not visit Canada to complete his study of 4^th semester. It is alleged by the complainant that O.P. not only deprived the complainant No.1 to complete his educational project, but also caused loss of two precious years of learning period. Thus the complainant No.1 sustained loss of two academic years and O.P. also caused monitory loss, mental agony, hardship inconvenience and damage to the complainants. Therefore they issued legal notice dated 08/12/2007 to the O.P. calling upon them to pay total Rs.7,85,000/- to them towards the refund of fees of Rs.2,85,000/- and damages and compensation. However they gave reply to the notice and denied their liability. Hence the complainant Nos.1 and 2 filed consumer complaint against O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the District Forum, Nagpur claiming from them refund of Rs.2,85,000/- and further claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. They also claimed cost of complaint.

4.      The O.P.Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the District Forum below and filed their common reply. It is their case in brief that they were not responsible for obtaining visa for Canada. They never promised to secure visa for the students. They had tried to provide their full support to assist the students getting their visa easily without any hurdle.  They appointed the Visa Counselor from Canadian Education Center, New Delhi, which is the most recognized and recommended Institute by Canada. The said counselor had visited thrice to school for verifying the visa documents before submitting it. But the complainants were unable to collect and show all the documents as instructed by the said counselor. They did not submit necessary documents for obtaining visa. Therefore for non submission of the relevant documents, the visa of the complainant No.1 came to be rejected. It is denied that the complainants paid total fees of Rs.2,85,000/-. According to them, they paid total amount of fees of Rs.1,93,000/- only and cheques issued by the complainant for fees of 3^rd semester was dishonored. The complainants also did not send copy of all the documents to Canadian Education Center before they apply to VFS for visa. However the complainants directly sent the documents without any final verification and without making  changes in documents as asked by the counselor. The OP.Nos.1 and 2 had tried their best to see that the student do not loose their academic year and after explaining and convincing New Brunswick Department of Education (for short NBDOE) to get completed the 4^th semester in India and procure the same degree which they would have otherwise got after going to Canada. The complainant No.1 never attended the classes arranged for the 4^th semester inspite of the notices sent to him. The complainant No.1 discontinued the course without any prior intimation. Therefore it was prayed by O.P.Nos.1 and 2 that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

5.      The District Forum below after considering evidence brought on record passed the impugned order and thereby dismissed the complaint holding that it is not proved by the complainants that it was the responsibility of the O.P. to get visa and as the visa of the complainant No.1 has been denied by Canada Government, the O.P. can not be held to be guilty of deficient service.

6.      As observed above, feeling aggrieved the original complainant Nos.1 and 2 have filed this appeal. Both the parties in appeal are referred to by their original status in the complaint that complainant Nos.1 and 2 and O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the sake of convenience.

7.      The notices issued by this Commission to the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 were duly served to them and the acknowledgments about service of the said notices to both of them have been duly received. They failed to appear. Therefore this Commission proceeded ex-parte against them as per order dated 18/01/2017. The name of the O.P.No.3 has been deleted as per request of the learned advocate of the complainant Nos.1 and 2.

8.      The learned advocate of the complainant Nos.1 and 2 has drawn our attention to copies of documents filed on record and submitted that the said documents were not disputed by the O.P.Nos.1 and 2. According to him it is proved from the marksheet produced on record that complainant No.1 already completed initial third semesters successfully and he was qualified to attend 4^th semester at Canada and it was the responsibility  of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 as per the documents filed on record to get visa from Canada Government for the complainant No.1. He argued that the District Forum below has not considered in right perspectives the documents filed on record and erroneously held that it was the responsibility of the complainant to obtain visa from Canada Government. According to him the complainants had submitted all the necessary documents for obtaining the visa, but due to inaction on the part of O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 no visa could be obtained from Canada Government and therefore they rendered deficient service to complainant No.1. Therefore they requested that impugned order may be set aside and O.P.Nos.1 and 2 may be directed to refund fees of Rs.2,85,000/- and to pay to complainants compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed in the complaint as due to their deficient service the future career of the complainant  No.1 has been spoiled. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ajay Kumar…….V/s……L.N.Mithila University and Another, III (2017) CPJ 311 (NC). In that case the course was cancelled due to fact that State Government did not give permission to start a course in Educational Institution. It is also held by Hon’ble National Commission that it simply means that the course was unauthorisely initiated and advertised by opposite parties. Therefore they could not be deemed to be an educational institution so far as the said particular course was concerned. It was also held that it was the correspondence course and therefore loss of employment was not expected and hence complainant was awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- by the Hon’ble National Commission.

9.      Thus it is now to be seen as to whether it was the responsibility of the complainants to get the visa from the Government of Canada for completing the 4^th semester by the complainant No.1, at Canada. The brochure of aforesaid educational plain produced on record is minutely perused by us, which was not disputed by O.P.Nos.1 and 2 before the District Forum below. It simply shows that the 4^th semester was to be completed by the student at Canada and for that the requisite tuition fees as stated in the said brochure was to be paid by the concerned student. The said brochure does not show that it will be the sole responsibility of the student to obtain visa from the Government of Canada for completing the 4^th semester in Canada. It is stated in the brochure that on successful completion of 4^th semester, every student will be awarded the Higher Secondary Certificate (Diploma) from New Brunswick, Department of Education  (NBDOE) and the said certificate qualifies the students to apply for admission to any University Program in Canada, USA and India.

10.    The copy of the admission form is also produced on record which is also not disputed. It also no where provides that it is the responsibility of the student to obtain the visa from Government of Canada.

11.    We therefore find that it was obligatory on the part of O.P.Nos.1 and 2 while getting admission of any student for the aforesaid educational course, to give clear understanding in writing to all the students that it will be their sole responsibility to obtain visa for completing 4^th semester in Canada and in case of their failure, no liability will be fastened O.P.Nos.1 and 2. We find that as there was no such clear understanding given by O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to any of the student, it can not be said that it was the sole responsibility of the complainant Nos.1 and 2 to obtain visa by completing all formalities.

12.    Moreover, it is not disputed that the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 had appointed the visa counselor from Canada Educational Center, New Delhi to facilitate the process of obtaining visa. The case of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 is not supported by any documents to show that the said visa counselor had demanded certain documents from the complainants and that they failed to provide the same to the said visa counselor and hence Canada Government rejected visa of complainant No.1. Therefore without any document, we are not inclined to accept that the complainant failed to provide requisite documents to the visa counselor as demanded by him and therefore visa could not be obtained for complainant No.1 or visa was rejected. The case of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 is also not supported by any document to prove that the complainants had directly sent documents without any final verification and without making any changes in the documents to Canada Government for obtaining the visa, though the said documents were asked by the counselor. Hence it can not be said that as the complainants directly sent the documents to the Canada Educational Center, New Delhi before they applied to VFS for visa, the Government of Canada refused to grant the visa to complainant No.1.

13.    We therefore of the considered view that since the complainant No.1 was admitted in the aforesaid educational course after getting huge fees from him, it was also the simultaneous responsibility of O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to see that all the formalities for obtaining visa are completed and students complete 4^th semester at Canada after obtaining the visa. The complainant No.1 was ready to pay requisite fees for 4^th semester. The O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 did not issue any notice to the complainants calling certain documents for obtaining visa. The complainant No.1 was a minor at the time of admission and he was not  expected to complete all the formalities personally. Therefore we are of the considered view that the visa for completing 4^th semester at Canada could not be obtained due to total in action on the part of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2. Hence it is proved that they rendered deficient service to the complainants. The Forum below has not considered in right perspective above discussed documents filed on record and erred in holding that the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 can not be held responsible for not obtaining visa for complainant No.1. Therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

14.    The complainant No.1 is entitled to compensation as he could not complete the 4^th semester at Canada. The complainant has claimed refund of fees of Rs.2,82,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. However the complainant has not explained as to why he did not complete the 4^th semester in India as per offer given by O.P. Nos.1 and 2 to him. He has not denied that the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 had tried their level best to see that complainant No.1 does not loose his academic year and after explaining and convincing New Brunswick Department of Education (NBDOE) regarding visa problem, O.P.Nos.1 and 2 could secure permission from NBDOE to get completed the 4^th semester in India and to procure the same degree which he could have otherwise got after going to Canada. It is also not the case of complainants that 4^th semester could not be completed in India after securing permission from NVDOE for that purpose. Hence we hold that the complainants are not entitled for refund of Rs.2,85,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

15.    However, we find that since the complainant No.1 due to in action on the part of O.P.Nos.1 and 2 could not get visa for completing regular 4^th semester at Canada, he lost at least his opportunity of getting the certificate at the end of the 16 months of his completing the course. Therefore we hold that lumpsump compensation of Rs.25,000/- needs to be granted from O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to the complainant No.1. Moreover the interest @ 9% p.a. needs to be granted from the date of the consumer complaint i.e. from 18/03/2008. Accordingly the appeal deserves to be partly allowed as under.                        

// ORDER //

1. The appeal is partly allowed as under.
2. The original opposite party Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal jointly and severally shall pay to the original complainant No.1/appellant No.1 in this appeal, compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. from 18/03/2008 till its realization by him.
3. The original Opposite party Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein jointly and severally shall pay to the original complainant No.1/appellant No.1 in this appeal, litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.
4. Copy of this order be furnished to both parties free of cost.