Haryana

Panchkula

CC/65/2022

MS.ANITA RANI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S STEP -UP EDUCATION. - Opp.Party(s)

AMAN SHARMA & GURDEEP SINGH

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	65 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	23.02.2022
Date of Decision	:	24.07.2023

 

 

Ms. Anita Rani daughter of Shri Hardeep, resident of Village Billa, Tehsil and District Panchkula(Haryana)

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s Step-up Education, SCF No.13, 2^nd Floor, Phase V, Mohali    through its Managing Director Amrit Grewal.

2.     Amrit Grewal, M/s Step-up Education, SCF No.13, 2^nd Floor,       Phase V, Mohali.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma  Garg, Member

                        Dr. Barhm  Parkash Yadav, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Aman Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OPs already ex-parte vide order dated 09.05.2022.

 

                                        ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the OPs are engaged in providing Visa relating facilitation services to the consumers; the complainant had intended to settle abroad permanently; the complainant came to know about the advertisement of the Ops, whereby they had offered to arrange visa for Canada within 45 days; the OP No.1 is the firm and the OP No.2 is the Managing Director and managing the day to day affairs of the OP No.1 and fully liable for the act and liabilities of the OP No.1. It is alleged that the complainant had visited the OPs, who told him(complainant) that the immigration visa success rate of their firm was 100% and that the fee for the processing of visa was to be paid in installments. The OPs also told that the complainant, first, have to pay an amount of R.35,000/- as registration charges; believing on their version and allured with the clever talks of the OPs, the complainant had agreed to get registered herself with OPs and thus, paid the demanded amount, in cash, in three installments. However, the OPs had issued receipt of Rs.33,000/- only. The OP’s also disclosed and assured that if the visa of the complainant was refused, they(OP’s) would refund the whole amount after making some deductions. Thereafter, the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for IMIA fee, which was accordingly paid by her  in cash to the OPs. Again, the OPs demanded Rs.50,000/- more from the complainant, which was also paid by her through Google pay by her friend’s account to the OPs. Thereafter, the OPs again demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant for funds. The said amount was also paid by the complainant. The OPs had disclosed the complainant that her papers work had already been completed till 23-24 March, 2020 and she would receive the call from the Embassy but thereafter due to Covid-19, lockdown was imposed on 22.03.2023 and no call was received by the complainant as assured by the OPs. Further, It is alleged that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the complainant in connection with her biometric attendance in the Embassy on 15.09.2021. Also, a sum of Rs.3,200/- & Rs.2,600/- was paid when she visited the Embassy. The complainant was surprised to know that her visa was declined by Embassy and the OPs had sent the refusal letter to the complainant through whatsapp. Thereafter, the complainant contacted and requested the OPs to refund the amount paid by her but the OPs kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or other. It is stated that a sum of Rs.14,000/- (i.e. Rs.7,000/- & Rs.7,000/- on different occasions) was refunded out of Rs.2,20,000/-. It is stated that the OPs had been deficient while rendering services to the complainant. The OP’s have caused great harassment, inconvenience and mental torture, agony and suffering to the complainant due to deficiency in service on their part. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 & 2 through registered post, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OPs; hence, they were  deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs No.1 & 2, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 09.05.2022.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered her affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. 

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 05.02.2020(Annexure C-4) & 18.03.2020 (Annexure C-5), it was binding upon the OPs to refund the amount, in case, visa was declined by the Embassy. It is contended that the complainant requested the OPs several times to refund the amount as paid by her to them but only a sum of Rs.14,000/- was refunded on 26.11.2021 and 03.11.2021 out of total amount of Rs.2,20,000/-. It is contended that the Ops had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 05.02.2020 & 18.03.2020(Annexure C-4 & C-5) and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.               The OPs have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite service of notices and accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.05.2022 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             We have perused the cash receipts(Annexure C-2 & C-3), Agreement dated 05.02.2020 & 18.03.2020 (Annexure C-4 & C-5). As per cash receipt(Annexure C-2 & C-3) as well as Agreement dated 05.02.2020 & 18.03.2020(Annexure C-4 & C-5), it is evident that a sum of Rs.33,000/- was paid out of total settled amount of Rs.35,000/-. It is also evident that as per account statement Annexure C-7 that a sum of Rs.7,000/-, Rs.7,000/- & Rs.8,000/- was refunded by OPs on 26.11.2021, 03.12.2021 & 24.12.2021 and thus, there remains a balance of Rs. 11,000/- only out of the total paid amount of Rs.33,000/-. As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, visa was declined by the Embassy. Further, as per agreement dated 05.02.2020 & 18.03.2020(Annexure C-4 and C-5), the amount deposited by the complainant was liable to be refunded to her. Moreover, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted; thus, the OPs were deficient in not refunding the total amount to the complainant as per said agreement for which they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the complainant.

8.             In relief, the complainant has claimed a refund of Rs.2,06,000/- as a balance payment out of total alleged paid amount of Rs.2,20,000/-. The contention of the complainant qua making of payment, amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- except the payment of Rs. 33,000/- vide receipt no.5188 (Annexure C-2) and receipt no.5303 (Annexure C-3) is not proved.  Moreover, as per agreement dated 05.02.2020(Annexure C-4), the total registration charges has been mentioned as Rs.33,000/-/Rs.2,000/- unpaid. As mentioned above, a sum of Rs.22,000/- has been refunded to the complainant and therefore, she is entitled to refund of Rs.11,000/-along with interest. In addition the complainant is also entitled to compensate on account of mental agony, harassment and on account of litigation charges.

9.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum(S.I)w.e.f. 05.02.2020 i.e. the date of cash receipt(Annexure C-2/ Agreement dated 05.02.2020(Annexure C-4) till its realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant on account of litigation charges.

10.            The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced on: 24.07.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                        Member                     Member             President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                               Satpal

                                         President

 

 C.C. No.65 of 2022

 

Present:             Sh. Aman Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OPs already ex-parte vide order dated 09.05.2022.

                               

                        Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 24.07.2023 for orders.

Dated: 18.07.2023

 

 

 

Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                     Member                    Member                 President

 

 

 

Present:             Sh. Aman Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OPs already ex-parte vide order dated 09.05.2022.

                       

                 Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OPs with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.24.07.2023

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma        Garg              Satpal                           Member                                    Member                President