BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.159 of 2020

                                             Date of Instt.17.03.2020

                                             Date of Decision:-28.09.2021

Kiran Kumari Verma aged about 26 yrs daughter of Sh. Narinder Kumar r/o House No.376/8, Avtar Nagar, Jalandhar City, Jalandhar, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Moxsh Overseas Education Consultant, 159/160, Kalyandas UdyogBhavan, Century Bazaar, Prabhadevi (W), Mumbai- 400025, Maharastra, through its Director/Managing Director.

2. Moxsh Overseas Education Consultant, A-1-28, Janakpuri, Opposite Metro Pillar No.626, New Delhi-110058, through its Director/Managing Director.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Present: Sh. Arjun Khurana, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

Kuljit Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has done Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery i.e. MBBS and she was interested in doing PG course in Germany and started searching for the same. That the complainant after seeing the advertisement approached OP No.2 to enquire about the PG course in Germany and the complainant went to their office and met Mr.Vipinand enquired about the above said course, but he did not provide full information about the process at that time, so Mr.Vipin called Dr. Rajendra Sharma for the same. That the complainant talked to Dr. Rajendra Sharma on phone and he gave complainant all the details about the process of doing PG in Germany and when the complainant asked a question that “is clearing MCI is mandatory or not?” then Dr. Rajendra Sharma replied that it is not mandatory for doing PG in Germany. The advertisement issued by the OP is placed on the as Ex.C1, Ex.C2 and Ex.C2/A respectively. Thereafter, the complainant asked OP No.2 to provide some reference contacts of students who are already doing PG course in Germany through Moksh Overseas Education Consultant i.e. OP No.2, but the complainant told to first register with Moksh Overseas Education Consultant and then reference will be provided to them as soon as possible. That the complainant relying on the assurance of the OP No.2 in the month of May and gave registration fee i.e. Rs.88,500/- in two installments of Rs.60005.90 on 22.05.2019 and Rs.28505.90 on 06.06.2019 vide NEFT at Jalandhar which comes to total of Rs.88,500/- fees deposited by complainant with a view that OP No.2 will provide complainant with reference contacts of those who are already doing/have done PG in Germany and trusted OP No.2 with all the information which was delivered to complainant. The copy of student registration form is Ex.C-3. The account statement reflecting the NEFT done from the account of the complainant to the OP is Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and copy of receipt of Rs.88,500/- and acknowledgment is Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 respectively. Thereafter, complainant started taking online classes from OP No.2 and complainant again requested OP No.2 to provide reference contacts of anyone who are already doing/have done PG in Germany as earlier OP No.2 told complainant to first register with Moksh Overseas Educational Consultant then OP No.2 will provide all the information regarding reference who are already doing/have done PG course in Germany. That complainant requested OP No.2 many times for reference contacts and other important information but staff members of OP No.2 did not respond to complainant request. This continues for almost 2-3 month in which complainant approached staff members of OP No.2 through various means like calls, messages, emails, whatsapp but his staff members always neglected the same and never made any clarifications on some important information asked by complainant and OP No.2 promised complainant to provide proper information about the course and reference contacts after the registration process. The copy of various chats and messages are Ex.C-8 to Ex.C8/V. That in the meantime complainant contacted one person who is currently a doctor in Germany and he conveyed to complainant that for starting PG in Germany one should have Good Standing Certificate which can only be provided after clearing MCI exam. That complainant again approached staff members of OP No.2 for clarification on the above said issue that is clearing MCI exam is mandatory or not, then staff member of OP No.2 again replied that it is not mandatory and he will enquire more about it. That OP No.2 never entertain complainant properly and always provided wrong and incomplete information to complainant and due to which complainant has suffered irreparable loss of their crucial time.That complainant left with no other option to discontinue from his institution on breaking trust of complainant and cheating with them and not providing proper information with malafide intention to only getting money. That immediately after getting the correct information about the PG course in Germany complainant approached OP No.2 to revoke their registration and applied for the refund. That on 4^th September, 2019 complainant sent an email on email address of OP No.2 that money of complainant be refunded on the basis of not instructed properly and other reasons and again on 10^th September 2019 complainant sent an email that their registration fees i.e. Rs.88,500/- be refunded, but OP No.2 took this matter leniently and never respond to complainant despite so many requests. Copy of said emails Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 respectively. That complainant sent more than 15 emails from time to time to OP No.2 and even went to his office at Delhi where complainant was harassed by staff members of OP No.2 and Dr. Rajinder Sharma and Mr.Vipin refused to meet our client and complainant was told by OP No.2 that they will get response on email and the concerned person is Mr.Brijesh. That complainant sent emails to OP No.2 almost more than 5-7 times every month on repeated request of refund of money. That OP No.2 then revert back through email in the month of November 2019 and conveyed to complainant that complainant is eligible for refund of Rs.25,000/- each and it will be initiated as soon as possible if complainant accept the same. But the complainant refused the refund of Rs.25,000/- and demand full refund vide mail dated 07.11.2019. Copy of said email is Ex.C-11. Further the OP No.2 sent an email dated 26.11.2019 saying that the complainant is only will get the refund of Rs.37,500/- and will not consider request in this regard in this future. Copy of the said email is Ex.C-12.That complainant again approached OP No.2 on the above said issue that full amount i.e. Rs.88,500/- should be refunded to complainant because complainant never joined classes properly and wrong information was provided by OP No.2 and wasted the crucial time of complainant and on the basis of breaking trust of complainant. Further as per student registration form the German language classes were offered to the student free of cost. Secondly, the complainant was at first stage registration i.e. online classes and still not have started second step of counseling and guidance to select the university. So, accordingly, the complainant is entitled for full refund rather than half of the refund of Rs.37,500/- which is being offered by the OP No.2. That it is evident from the above said issue that OP No.2 has cheated complainant and induced them only to grab money from them and never entertain them properly. That OP No.2 never showed interest after getting money in the form of registration fees i.e. Rs.88,500/-. That OP No.2 deliberately always unheard all the enquiry made by complainant and provided them wrong information and this clearly shows that OP No.2 always have malafide intention on his part from the beginning. That the acts and conduct of the OP No.2 clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service provided and OP No.2 from the very beginning had the intention to cheat and defraud complainant, with an intention to misappropriate the money paid by the complainant and also the legal notice dated 04.12.2019 was also served by the complainant to the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.88,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for damages and loss and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite serviceboth the OPs did not come present and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

3. In order to prove her respective version, the counsel for the complainant produced on the file complainant’s evidence.

4. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file as well as written arguments very minutely.

5. It has been proved by the complainant that she has paid her fee amounting to Rs.88,500/- as per statement of account Ex.C-4. She has proved on record that she requested for refund of her entire fee as per screen shot of Whatsapp and emails. The complainant has served legal notices to the OPs copy of which is Ex.C-13 and the postal receipts are Ex.C-14, Ex.C-15. After the receipt of the legal notice, the OPs has provided refund Rs.25,000/- for which she refused and demand full refund. The learned counsel has also produced copy of the admission brochure of the Ops which is silent about the providing facility. The learned counsel has tendered copy of public notice Ex.C-1.

6. We placed reliance on 2009 (1) CLT 154 of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission titled as M.V.J. College of Engineering VsTukaramRao. He has also placed reliance on 2011 (1) CLT 549 of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission titled as Saravpreet Singh VsLalaLajpat Rai Institute of Engineering & Technology, Moga&Anr. The relevant Para No. 6 is reproduced as under:

“6. In view of the above clear guidelines applicable to both Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Institutions, they cannot be allowed to take plea of their advertisement and condition contained therein to deny refund of fees and other charges to the petitioner/complainant. In fact, we find that the present case is squarely covered by the two judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner/complainant. It is mentioned in the two judgments (supra) that the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission also provide for refund of fees in cases such as the present one before us. In the circumstances, the revision of the complainant/petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside. Respondent No.1-Institute is accordingly directed to refund the entire amount of fees deposited by the complainant with it at the time of taking admission along with Rs.7,500 which was received by the Institute from Respondent No.2-University. However, Respondent No.1-Institute shall be free to deduct a processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000 while refunding the amount of fees to the complainant. The refund of fees after deducting processing fee upto Rs.1,000 shall be paid by the Respondent No.1-Institute within a period of 3 weeks from the date of this order failing which, the Respondent No.1-Institute shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of actual refund. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

7. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.88,500/- to the complainant which the complainant has deposited with OPs alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Further, the complainant has been harassed by the OPs, hence the complainant is held entitled for compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.8000/-.  The entire amount shall be paid by the OPs within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

8. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. 9. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

28^th of September 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)

Jaswant Singh Dhillon

(Member)