Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Succinctly put, the case of the Complainant remains that, she hired the services of the OP to facilitate the admission of her daughter in a medical college in India.  For this purpose, she, together with her husband, with great difficulty, made an advance payment of Rs. 27,00,000/- to the OP.  As the OP not only reneged on its promise, but insisted on coughing up more money, out of sheer disguise and frustration, she asked it to refund the entire money and after lot of persuasion though the OP issued four cheques worth Rs. 22,00,000/- instead of Rs. 27,00,000/-, the same too got dishonoured. Subsequently, though the OP deposited Rs. 4,50,000/- to her bank account on different dates, the remaining sum still remains unpaid. In such circumstances, she filed the instant case.

Be it mentioned here that, as the OP did not file WV within the statutory period, the case was set ex parte against it.  However, subsequently, it turned up before this Commission and moved one IA bearing No. 589/2019 in order to articulate its version in respect of the complaint of the Complainant.  In such circumstances, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modula India v. Kamakhya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC 619, we allowed the OP to remain present at the time of hearing and communicative its view before the Bench.  Accordingly, both sides were heard and documents on record gone through carefully.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the OP submitted that as per its commitment, the OP arranged for medical entrance examination of the daughter of the Complainant in Karnataka.  However, she failed to secure decent rank in the merit list.  Thereafter, the OP took necessary steps to secure her admission in the medical colleges abroad subject to payment of additional sum of money.  However, the Complainant did not agree to the same and ask for refund of the deposited sum.  So, the OP vide its letter dated 22-09-2018 refunded the money to her.  However, as the cheques got dishonoured, she filed this case. It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that due payment was made by Miss Adrija Mukherjee and therefore, the complaint case ought to be filed by her and not by the present Complainant.  It is also submitted that the present dispute being related to ‘education’, is not disputable in this Commission.  Further case of the OP is that, as the Complainant’s daughter failed to secure higher rank in the Karnataka Medical Admission Test, 2018, she needed to pay more donation to get admission in some other medical college.  Claiming that the OP took necessary steps to secure Adrija’s admission in a foreign medical college; which entailed incurring considerable expenditure, the OP decided to refund the residual amount after deducting Rs. 5,00,000/-.  However, the Complainant was adamant to get back the entire sum of money.  Since the Complainant took exception to the fact that the cheques issued by the OP got dishoured, according to the Ld. Advocate, the Complainant needed to initiate proceedings under the N.I. Act before the appropriate Court of Law and not before this Commission.  For all these reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the case.

Undisputedly, the Complainant paid Rs. 27,00,000/- to the OP for facilitating the admission of her daughter in a Medical College in India.  It is not the case of the Complainant that there was any imperfection/shortcoming in rendering education on the part of the OP to the Complainant.  Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the dispute between the parties does not revolve around ‘education’; rather, over alleged deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and for this simple reason, we do not think that by filing this case, the Complainant committed any legal infirmity.

It appears from the photocopies of cheques that the same were issued by the Complainant herself and therefore, she had every right to initiate the complaint case.  The objection raised from the side of the OP is not at all tenable.

The present case is filed alleging unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Complainant has not moved this Commission merely for getting back the amount of dishonoured cheques; she has done so in view of the harassment, mental pain/stress and agony that she and other members of her family has had been subjected to at the hands of the OP. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that every essential ingredients of a consumer dispute is present here.  Therefore, initiation of this complaint case cannot be termed unwise under any circumstances.

Now, let us delve into the merit of the case.

Clause No. 5 of the agreement dated 18-07-2018 executed between the parties runs as under:

“If you are unable to fulfill the criteria’s as per the MCI or the respective medical council of the country, as well as College norms or if we are unable to do the admission the entire money will be refund.” (sic)   

While the agreement contained such clause, the OP had no right whatsoever to withhold a single penny, let alone the whooping sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-,  from the money advanced by the Complainant as service charge. No such documentary proof is advanced from the end of the OP that the Complainant ever expressed her desire to get her daughter admitted in a Medical College either in China or Nepal.  Therefore, it was totally uncalled for on the part of the OP to proceed an inch in that direction.   

Not only the OP faltered in keeping its promise of securing admission of Complainant’s daughter in a Medical College in India; what is worse, all the cheques issued by it got bounced for want of sufficient fund.  Such unethical business practices cannot be let off lightly. 

The OP though attributed it to the incompetence of the Complainant’s daughter; it conveniently forgot that, had she secured higher rank in the Joint Entrance examination, it would not require her to hire the services of the OP burning a deep hole in Complainant’s pocket.

We were taken aback listening to the harrowing experience of the Complainant, as enumerated by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant in course of hearing. The Complainant took non-refundable advance from her GPF account and her husband also contributed considerable sum of money from his retiral benefit. Besides the sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- that was paid as advance to the OP, the Complainant had to incur considerable sum of money towards air fare, lodging & boarding at a hotel in Bengaluru for more than a week. Presumably, like any other concerned parents, Complainant and her husband took so much pain and put their life savings at stake in order to christen the future prospect of their daughter.   As ill luck would have it, they fall prey to the sinister designs of the OP instead. The manner, in which the Complainant and her husband were harassed/humiliated, as explained to us by the Ld. Advocate, surpasses all norms of civic decency. They certainly did not deserve all these ordeals.

Considering all these aspects, we have no qualms allowing this case with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.  OP shall refund the entire sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- to the Complainant along with compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- within 40 days from this day, i.d., OP shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- for the entire period of default.