Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/544/2017

Sh Ravish Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s New World overseas Education Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dewan Chand

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/544/2017
Date of Institution	:	24/07/2017
Date of Decision	:	20/03/2018

 

Ravish Bansal S/o Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Resident of H.No.272, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh.                 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s New World Overseas Education Consultants Pvt. Ltd. S.C.O 167, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh. (Through its Director).

 

2. Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Director, M/s New World Overseas Education Consultants Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O 167, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.       

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vijay Mangla, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Manish Joshi, Counsel for OPs

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant approached OPs and enquired about his education career in Australia.  After going through his educational qualification, OPs told the complainant that he is eligible to study abroad and at Australia the complainant can join and pursue “Aged Care Course”. The OPs promised to provide full assistance as they had links with the University and colleges and also arrange for his Study Visa and admission to best college/University. On inducement made by the OPs, complainant paid a sum of Rs.65,000/- as initial payment i.e. Rs.30,000/- as Embassy fee and Rs.35,000/- towards consultancy fee. However, the OPs issued receipt for Rs.35,000/- only on the pretext that remaining amount has to be paid to Australian Embassy. The OPs got issued a Letter of Offer dated 19.8.2015 and also promised to get issued a Visa soon. The OPs also directed the complainant to get himself medically examined from National Dialysis & Medical Centre at Sector 10 Chandigarh.  Accordingly the complainant got himself examined on 26.11.2015 and paid Rs.3,000/- towards medical examination fee. The complainant delivered all the documents to the OPs and completed the formalities.  Since the complainant had completed all the formalities and even got shown a sum of Rs.18 lacs and supplied all the details to the OPs, but, they started putting off the queries of the complainant with regard to status of his application. The OPs promised intake of the complainant in the month of November by saying that the Visa will be issued soon. In the month of November 2015 when the complainant did not receive the Visa, he got suspicious and when he demanded to provide him the receipt number vide which his case/file had been submitted with the embassy, the OPs started making excuses. In the month of January 2016, the complainant approached the OPs and enquired about the status of his case and also to provide details of submission of his case with the concerned authority. When the OPs failed to provide Visa, the complainant requested them to either provide Visa or refund his money, but, they failed to do so despite legal notice dated 9.5.2017. According to the complainant, he and his parents had to incur unnecessary expenses on visiting office of the OPs time and again. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix. It has been averred that OP-1 is doing the business of providing consultation to the students with regard to their admission in various Foreign Colleges/ Institutes. Besides that OP-1 is also facilitating the students for completion of their documents required to be submitted before the concerned high commission for their Visa purposes and for that it is charging Rs.35,000/- from each student  which is non-refundable.  Thereafter the case of the complainant was submitted with Einstein College of Australia and the said college issued letter of offer after which OP-1 facilitated the complainant for completion of documents required to be submitted before the High Commission of Australia for visa purposes. The complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to OP-1 as Embassy fee to be paid to Australian Embassy after which OP-1 submitted the complete file with the Australian Embassy and paid the amount of Rs.28,136/- to the concerned Embassy on 22.1.2016 which was also non-refundable.  It has been contended that OP-1 performed its part of obligation with utmost sincerity, but, the complainant could not get admission in the college due to rejection of visa by the Australian High Commission. It has been contended that issuance of Visa by the concerned Embassy is not in the hands of OP. the medical of the complainant was got done as per the requirement of Australian High Commission. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         On 14.11.2017, counsel for OPs 1 & 2 made a statement that the reply filed on behalf of OP-1 be treated as reply on behalf of OP-2 also.
4.         Replication was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of the complainant, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
7.         Admittedly, the complainant had hired the services of the OPs for getting Study and admission in Australian University/College and has accordingly paid an amount of Rs.35,000/- as consultation fee as well as Embassy Fee of Rs.30,000/- as demanded by the OPs.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant spent Rs.3000/- towards his medical examination as desired by the OPs.
8.         The OPs have admitted in their reply that the case of the complainant was submitted with Einstein College of Australia and accordingly, the said college issued letter of Offer (Ann.C-3) to the complainant.
9.         The defence taken by the OPs in its written reply is that they have facilitated the complainant for completion of documents required to be submitted before the High Commission of Australia for Visa purposes and that the complainant has not got the admission in the college due to rejection of Visa by the Australian High Commission. 
10.         A bare perusal of Annexure C-3, admittedly got issued by the OPs, i.e. Letter of Offer and Written Agreement International Student dated 19.08.2015 from Einstein College of Australia, reveals that the orientation/commencement date of the course adopted by the complainant was 16.11.2015 and the finish date was 01.07.2016.  Since, the commencement date of the course of the complainant was 16.11.2015, therefore, the OPs was obviously to submit/present the Visa application of the complainant before the said date i.e. well before 16.11.2015 with the concerned Embassy.  However, it is admitted case of the OPs that they have submitted/presented the application of the complainant on 22.1.2016 i.e. after the start of the course of the complainant.  This very facts itself proves the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs.  Thus, it is also established that due to late submission of visa application of the complainant, after the date of commencement of the course, it resulted in the rejection of visa application whereby the concerned embassy opined and rejected the application on the ground that the applicant is not a genuine applicant.  We are of the opinion that certainly when the visa application of the complainant has been submitted after the commencement of the course date, in such set of circumstances, any embassy or authority would definitely doubt the genuineness of the applicant.   Had the OPs presented the visa application of the complainant before the concerned embassy well before the commencement date of the course, the position certainly would have been different.   Furthermore, there is no justification from the side of the OPs as to why they did not present the visa application of the complainant/ applicant well before the orientation/commencement date of the course.  Thus, it is well established that the OPs remained grossly deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant, as a result, the complainant has not only suffered mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss, but also suffered irreparable loss of precious time of his career.  Further, the action of the OPs in giving cover to their wrong/deficient acts by putting unreasonable justifications deserves to be heavy condemned and deprecated.   
11.         Keeping into consideration the facts & circumstances of the present case and findings given in the preceding paragraphs, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved.  Therefore, the complaint is allowed with directions to the OPs as under:-

a]     To refund an amount of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.11.2015 i.e. the date of start of the course (Ann.C-3) till realization;

b]     To pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant incurred by him towards medical examination.

c]     To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the mental & physical harassment as well as loss of precious year of the career of the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of OPs;

d]     To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-

12.         The OPs are directed to comply with the above order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(b) and (c) above from the date of fling of this complaint till its realization, apart from complying with other directions as above.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
20/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”