DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of August 2024
Filed on: 06/02/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
CC No 67/2019
Complainant:
Ajeeshmon C T Chithamtharayil House. Pathirapally, Alappuzha.
(By Adv.Mishal M.Dasan, Flat No.55/2332, Cheruparambath Apartments, Mattalil Temple Road, Kadavanthra P.O., Ernakulam, Pin-682 020)
Vs.
Opposite Party:
M/s ABC Study Links. Rep by Venugopal S G, GM, Jos Biding Jos Jn, Ernakulam.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President:
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as follows:
This complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant approached an educational consultancy, the opposite party, seeking admission to a postgraduate course in Robotics or Mechatronics at one of 27 universities in Italy. The consultancy assured the complainant of his eligibility for these courses and demanded a payment of ₹59,000 for their services. Additionally, the complainant was required to achieve an IELTS score of 6, for which he spent ₹20,000.
After fulfilling all these requirements, including securing the IELTS score, the complainant was informed by the opposite party that his educational qualifications were not suitable for the desired courses in Robotics and Mechatronics. Instead, they suggested alternative courses in Energy Engineering and Transport System Engineering, which the complainant had not initially sought.
Doubting the accuracy of these claims, the complainant consulted other well-known agencies and discovered that there were no restrictions on his eligibility for the courses he originally intended to pursue. This discrepancy led the complainant to believe that the opposite party had misrepresented the facts, resulting in a deficiency of service by providing false information and failing to deliver the promised admission.
As a result of the opposite party's actions, the complainant incurred a financial loss of approximately ₹80,000, including ₹59,000 paid to the opposite party, ₹20,000 spent on IELTS preparation, and ₹1,000 for document submission. Having borrowed this amount with the hope of studying his desired course abroad, the complainant is now left without admission and unable to repay even the interest on the borrowed sum. Therefore, the complainant requests the Commission to hold the opposite party accountable for the deficiency in service and to grant appropriate relief as prayed for.
2. Notice
The Commission sent notice to the opposite party. The opposite party filed their version.
3. THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY.
ABC Study Links, an overseas education consultancy with 33 years of experience, has operated from its corporate office in Kochi for the past 22 years without any prior complaints. The complainant approached the consultancy after seeing an advertisement for admissions in Italy, seeking assistance with scholarship-based admission due to financial constraints. Despite being informed that his low academic marks (65% in Mechanical Engineering) would make admission challenging, he insisted on proceeding. As a precaution, he signed a commitment letter and a special declaration, acknowledging that ABC Study Links did not guarantee admission or visa success, and he would bear any losses if either was unsuccessful.
After paying non-refundable counselling fees and additional service charges, ABC Study Links promptly applied for his admission to Sapienza University of Rome for the September 2019 intake. However, after the application process had begun, the complainant decided to cancel his admission, citing an opportunity for employment abroad. ABC Study Links advised him to submit a written cancellation request to process a refund, deducting only the counselling fees. Despite multiple attempts to contact him, the complainant did not follow up or collect the refund.
After a year and a half of no communication, ABC Study Links received a complaint from the complainant, claiming he had been misled and threatening the firm with demands for a full refund. ABC Study Links asserts that both of his applications to Sapienza University were rejected in March 2019 and that they are still willing to refund the amount as per the terms he had agreed to. They emphasize that their consultancy operates as a business, not a charity and that any services provided must cover their operational costs.
4. Evidence:
The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with eleven documents. The documents in the complaint are marked as Exhibits A1 to A11:
- Exhibit A1: Copy of the receipt showing the amount given to the opposite party by the complainant.
- Exhibit A2: List of universities provided by the opposite party to the complainant.
- Exhibit A3: IELTS score report of the complainant.
- Exhibit A4: Bank account details of the opposite party.
- Exhibit A5: Printout of the email sent by the complainant to the opposite party (bank account details).
- Exhibit A6: Printout of the email sent to the opposite party showing the complainant's passport.
- Exhibit A7: Printout of the email sent to the opposite party showing the updated CV of the complainant.
- Exhibit A8: Printout of the email from the complainant to the opposite party showing the certificates of the complainant.
- Exhibit A9: Printout of the email from the complainant to the opposite party showing the consolidated certificate of the complainant.
- Exhibit A10: Printout of the email from the complainant to the opposite party showing the photo and certificates of the complainant.
- Exhibit A11: IELTS Test Report Form of the complainant.
5. Points for Consideration:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?
6. Argument Note filed by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant:
The complaint centers around the opposite party, an educational consultancy, failing to secure the requested admission for the complainant despite having collected a total of ₹59,000 for their services. Additionally, the complainant was compelled by the opposite party to achieve an IELTS score of 6, which he successfully obtained after spending an additional ₹20,000.
The opposite party has not contested the case (is ex parte). The complainant submitted a total of 11 documents—three with the initial complaint and eight more along with the proof affidavit. When the opposite party collected the payment from the complainant, they assured him of securing admission to postgraduate courses, specifically in Robotics and Mechatronics, at 27 universities in Italy. However, after receiving the full payment, the opposite party informed the complainant that these courses were not available based on his educational qualifications.
The opposite party further indicated that the complainant might only be eligible for admission to courses in Energy Engineering and Transport System Engineering. However, upon consulting with other reputable agencies, the complainant discovered that he was indeed eligible to apply for the courses in Robotics and Mechatronics as originally intended. This indicates that the information provided by the opposite party was false, constituting a clear deficiency in service and a deceitful act that resulted in the complainant being financially exploited.
The complainant has suffered a total loss of approximately ₹80,000, which includes ₹59,000 paid to the opposite party, ₹20,000 spent on IELTS preparation as instructed by them, and ₹1,000 for document submission. This amount was borrowed by the complainant with the intention of pursuing his preferred course abroad, but he is now left without the admission he sought and is unable to even pay the interest on the borrowed money. Therefore, it is requested that the complaint be allowed, and appropriate relief be granted as sought.
We have carefully heard the submission made at length by the learned Counsel representing the complainant and have also considered the entire evidence on record.
i). Maintainability of the Complaint:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows any consumer to file a complaint regarding deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. The complainant approached the opposite party for services related to securing admission to educational institutions abroad, for which he paid the amount as evidenced by the receipt marked as Exhibit A1. Therefore, the complainant qualifies as a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, and the opposite party is considered a "service provider" as per Section 2(1)(o). Hence, this complaint is fully maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ii). Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice:
The complainant paid the opposite party ₹59,000 for securing admission to specific courses in Robotics and Mechatronics. The opposite party initially assured him of his eligibility but later retracted, claiming his qualifications were insufficient for the desired courses. However, subsequent consultations with other agencies revealed that the complainant was indeed eligible for the courses he intended to pursue. This reveals a clear misrepresentation by the opposite party.
In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 1900, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a service provider could be held liable for deficiency in service when they fail to fulfil their obligations as agreed upon with the consumer. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“18. In our opinion, in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à- vis the supplier of services or goods. It is to overcome this disadvantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by Parliament.”
Applying this principle to the present case, the opposite party’s actions amount to a deficiency in service as they failed to provide accurate information and did not fulfil the agreed-upon services.
iii). Liability of the Opposite Party:
The opposite party is liable for the financial loss suffered by the complainant due to their deficient service and misrepresentation. The complainant incurred a loss including the fees paid to the opposite party and expenses for IELTS preparation. This financial burden was exacerbated by the fact that the complainant had borrowed the amount in anticipation of pursuing his preferred course abroad, leaving him with a debt he is now unable to repay.
vi). Entitlement to Relief:
Given the facts of the case, the evidence presented, and the legal precedents discussed, the complainant is entitled to relief. The opposite party's failure to provide the promised service constitutes a breach of contract and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. The opposite party shall also be liable for the costs of these proceedings.
In examining this case, it is impossible not to empathize with the complainant, who, with aspirations of advancing his education and career, placed his trust in a consultancy that ultimately failed him. The dream of studying abroad, which he nurtured with great hope, was shattered by the opposite party's misrepresentation and negligence. This case is not just about financial loss; it is about the emotional turmoil and disappointment experienced by someone who took every step to secure a better future, only to be let down by those he believed would guide him. As a Commission, we must acknowledge the profound impact such actions can have on individuals' lives and reaffirm our commitment to upholding justice and protecting consumers from similar distress.
We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence, the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite party shall refund the full amount of ₹59,000 (Rupees Fifty-Nine Thousand Only) to the complainant, as evidenced by Exhibit A1.
- The opposite party shall pay ₹50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant. This compensation covers the loss and damages suffered due to the negligence, unfair trade practices, and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- The opposite party shall also pay ₹15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party is liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 30 days from the date of receiving this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under points I and II will result in interest being charged at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (06.02.2019) until the date of full payment realization.
. Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 30th day of August 2024
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence
- Exhibit A1: Copy of the receipt showing the amount given to the opposite party by the complainant.
- Exhibit A2: List of universities provided by the opposite party to the complainant.
- Exhibit A3: IELTS score report of the complainant.
- Exhibit A4: Bank account details of the opposite party.
- Exhibit A5: Printout of the email sent by the complainant to the opposite party (bank account details).
- Exhibit A6: Printout of the email sent to the opposite party showing the complainant's passport.
- Exhibit A7: Printout of the email sent to the opposite party showing the updated CV of the complainant.
- Exhibit A8: Printout of the email from the complainant to the opposite party showing the certificates of the complainant.
- Exhibit A9: Printout of the email from the complainant to the opposite party showing the consolidated certificate of the complainant.
- Exhibit A10: Printout of the email from the complainant to the opposite party showing the photo and certificates of the complainant.
- Exhibit A11: IELTS Test Report Form of the complainant.
Date of Despatch:
By Hand:
By Post
- /
