BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.176 of 2015

Date of Instt. 28.04.2015

Date of Decision :03.08.2015

1. Parminder Singh son of Sarabjit Singh R/o VPO Kamam, District SBS Nagar, Tehsil Nawan Shahr-144513.

2. Navjot Kaur D/o Sarabjit Singh R/o VPO Kamam, District SBS Nagar, Tehsil Nawan Shahr-144513.

..........Complainants Versus

Mohan Lal Kakkar and his wife Mrs.Kakkar alongwith consultants Pooja and Maninder of M/s M.K.Overseas, Near Krishana Complers, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant Parminder Singh in person.

Sh.VB Mehta Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant No.1 is student and with a aim of studying in Australia, he went to M.K.Overseas, i.e opposite party alongwith his sister Navjot Kaur in the month of November 2014 for consultancy. There, they met Mohan Kakkar, C.O and Miss Neha consultant. She told them that their academic record is good and thus they will help them to get their visa for March intake in duration of merely 2/3 months. They decided to apply through opposite party and on next day they went alongwith their original documents. Said Neha told them to submit their original documents alongwith application form and further told them that total processing fee is Rs.30,000/- and took Rs.15,000/- as advance and rest Rs.15,000/- was to be paid after visa. She told them that they will receive offer letter within 15-21 days. When after one month, they did not receive offer letter, then they alongwith their family went there and told them that they are doing nothing and to give them back their advance payment and documents. They mis-guided them and told them that they will arrange offer letter within two days but he i.e complainant No.1 was not convinced and took back all the documents from them. He told them to give his advance payment back but they refused to do so. Then after two days they called him and told that ZBA, Melbourne has accepted his case and issued him offer letter of three years diploma course in business under 572 visa subclass with 100% visa surety according to latest Australian rules and they decided to proceed further. It is further alleged that Miss Pooja, Senior Consultant told them further procedure and explained all financial requirements and tuition fees charges for first semester. She told them to show 16 Lacs as fund and to pay 14400 Australian Dollars as first semester fee including Overseas Health Insurance and they paid Rs.7,57,990/- on 12.1.2015 through Punjab Sind Bank, Kamam District SBS Nagar. They further charged Rs.2500/- for notary and Rs.500/- for affidavits. He paid Rs.3000/- to them and started waiting for Confirmation of Enrollment (COE) from ZBA, Melbourne. It is further averred that normally COE i.e Confirmation of Enrollment take maximum 72 hours after payment of fee and submission of financial documents but even after two weeks, he did not receive his COE. Ultimately, he went to office of opposite party alongwith his family members and argued with them and they told him that the embassy has rejected 572 subclass visa. So they will apply under 573 subclass and they need to apply for another offer letter from the university and that university will issue him offer letter within a week time. They further told him that fees paid by him will be adjusted according to offer letter from university without any problem. It is alleged that ultimately on February 19, he received call from Pooja that university has rejected his case. It is further alleged that he decided to fill the refund form and it was clearly mentioned that he will get his money back within 15 days. After 15 days, he called Pooja who told him that it will take more time. He kept on waiting and calling them. Meanwhile he personally sent a mail to ZBA regarding refund of his fee on 15.4.2015. The amount transfered was Rs.6,76,338/- and whereas he has paid Rs.7,57,990/-. It is further alleged that his sister Navjor Kaur had also applied through them and they charged Rs.15000/- from her also and they mis-guided her and brought her offer letter in a wrong course from CQU, Brisbane that was not at all relevant to her studies. They mislead her and said that she can change her course when she will go to Australia without any problem. Then she took Rs.2500/- for notary and Rs.500/- for affidavits. His sister Navjot Kaur called CQU and one of the staff of CQU told her that they are not dealing with M.K.Overseas due to their bad record. They came to know that earlier they were caught in a police racket and Mohan Kakkar, C.O, was arrested. So his sister decided that she will not apply through opposite party and took her case back. On such like averments, the complainants have prayed for refund of payment of Rs.30,000/- plus Rs.6000/- given for notary and affidavits and Rs.82000/- on account of less refund of fee. They have also demanded compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the opposite party has first made efforts for arranging offers letter from Australian education providers but due to change in rule of the Australian education providers, the application of Parminder Singh was declined by the institution as he was not meeting the eligibility criteria. In case of Navjot Kaur offers from Central Queensland University were arranged and that too with student scholarship, but she herself withdrawn her application because of her inability to pay the full tuition fee for one year. Receipt of Rs.15,000/- was issued by the opposite party and it is clearly mentioned on the receipt that advance fee was non refundable and that was consultancy fee and service charges. Parminder Singh and his sister had visited the office of the opposite party and wanted to go to Australia on student visa. It was made clear to both the applicants that the fee of Rs.15,000/- which is being charged is non refundable and are the service charges for processing the case of the applicant. Service charges are necessary for the opposite party as it has 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 party for arranging the student offers from Australian Education Providers, copies of the correspondence through email is attached. To accept or reject the case of every individual is the discretion of the Australian Education Providers. The opposite party 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 applicant. Moreover the opposite party has arranged offer letters from two education providers of New Zealand on request of the complainant, the copies of offer letters are enclosed. The fee in Australian dollars was directly sent to the university by the applicant and the same in full was received back. Charges of Rs.2500 and Rs.500/- were the expenses incurred by the applicant on stamp paper, typing and attestation by the notary public. The opposite party has not received any amount except Rs.15000/- each from both which is a professional fee, service charges and processing fee. The opposite party has nothing to do with the tuition fee sent by the applicant and the refund of tuition fee sent by the university. She herself has withdrawn her case. The complainant approached the opposite party for providing consultancy service by way of receiving advice, assistance and guidance and preparation of his case file for going to Australia on student visa by the concerned embassy. It is wrong that the applicants were caught and trapped or they were misguided, misled, cheated, betrayed and took advantage of their kindness and innocence. It is submitted that the tuition fee of 14416 Australian dollars was sent by the applicant himself to the university directly on 12.1.2015 and the same amount of 14416 Australian dollars was received back by the applicant himself on 14.4.2015. Bank advices for both the transactions are attached. So the opposite party has neither received any money nor responsible for difference in conversion charges of Australian Dollars. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of their complaint, complainant No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP51 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for opposite party.

6. It is not disputed that the complainants had paid Rs.15,000/- each as consultancy fee to the opposite party. In the complaint, the complainants have themselves pleaded that he alongwith his sister Navjot Kaur went to M.K.Overseas in the month of November 2014 for consultancy. So admittedly the above said amount was received as consultancy fee from both the complainants. The complainants have produced receipts of Rs.15,000/- issued by the opposite party and on the same "Non refundable" is mentioned. So consultancy fee was non refundable. From the various documents produced by the opposite party, it is evident that the opposite party had processed the case of both the complainants. So far as Navjot Kaur complainant is concerned. She herself withdrew her case. In the complaint it is mentioned that so his sister decided that she will not apply from M.K.Overseas and took her case back. So Navjot kaur has withdrawn her case on her own accord. From the email dated 2.2.2015 Ex.OP39, it is evident that CQ University Australia offer her admission. However, admittedly, she had withdrawn her case on her own. So no deficiency in service on part of opposite parties can be attributed as she herself withdrew her case. So far as, case of Parminder Singh is concerned, from the email dated 4.2.2015 Ex.OP16 it is evident that his case was rejected on the ground that he did not appear to be a genuine student or genuine temporary entrant to Australia. In the above said email it is mentioned as under:-

"Dear student,

We thank you for your application to study at ZBA.

The information that you have provided to ZBA, indicates that you may not be genuine student or a genuine temporary entrant (GTE) to Australia.

For information on what constitute a genuine student or GTE please visit the DIAC website:http://www.immi.gov.au/students/ gte-requirement.htm.

You admission to ZBA has ceased, any offers that have been provided are now withdrawn.

The admission process has ceased for the following reasons:-

The student does not meet GTE requirements.

Kindly contact your marketing manager for any further information.

ECA Admission Department".

7. So if the case of the complainant No.1 has been rejected by the university of Australia for the above mentioned reasons, the opposite party can not be blamed. The opposite party has only offered consultancy services to both the applicants and they have even perused their cases as is evident from various documents i.e Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP51 produced by the opposite party. Offer of admission was given to Navjot Kaur and this fact is also evident from offer of admission letter Ex.OP51 but she has withdrawn her case on her own. The fee was deposited by the complainant No.1, directly with the university in Australia and the amount was refunded by the university to him. So for any less amount refunded by the university on account of variation in exchange rate or may be for some other reason, the opposite party can not be blamed. The complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of opposite party in providing consultancy service to them.

8. Consequently, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby 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

03.08.2015 Member Member President