BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.494 of 2014
Date of institution: 07.08.2014
Date of Decision: 19.03.2015
Dr. Ishan Kagra son of late Pawan Kumar Kagra, resident of 430, Panchkula Heights, Peer Mushala, Zirakpur, District Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
North American Service Centre, # 80, 1st Floor, 1st Class, Kaveri Layout Near Ayyappa Temple, Tavarekere Main Road, Bangalore 560 029 through its Director.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. Sonia Bansal, Member.
Present: Shri Nitin Kant Setia, counsel for the complainant.
OP ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The case of the complainant is that he is a licensed dentist and has completed his BDS Degree in November, 2013. The complainant approached the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) through website vide e-mail dated 22.03.2014 Ex.C-1 for higher studies at University of East, Philippines. The OP assured the complainant that entire process of admission would be completed within 15 days. On the demand of the OP, the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 25.03.2014 and informed about this to the OP vide e-mail Ex.C-2. Thereafter nothing was heard from the OP and even the counselor of the OP stopped responding to the calls of the complainant. Thus, the complainant vide representation dated 12.05.2014 Ex.C-3 sought refund of the amount. The OP vide reply dated 16.06.2014 Ex.C-4 falsely assured to get admission of the complainant done in University of East, Manilaand.
With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OP refund Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 25.03.2014 and pay him compensation of Rs.1.00 lac for harassment and expenditure incurred in dealing with the case.
2. Notice sent to the OP was not received back served and unserved. None having appeared for it, the OP was proceeded against exparte on 15.12.2014.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-4.
4. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, the OP was given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for it to rebut the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the written arguments filed by him.
6. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant has availed the services of the OP for seeking admission to M.D.S. Course in the University of East, Philippines and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of depositing the same in the account of the OP through ICICI Bank Sector 20, Panchkula Haryana vide Ex.C-2. The dispute arose between the parties when the complainant has not got the admission document from the university and neither received the refund of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant approached the OP vide Ex.C-3 dated 12.05.2014 for seeking refund and the same has not been responded to by the OP. Complainant relied upon Ex.C-4 dated 16.60.2014 a response from the Advocate of the OP wherein the OP has mentioned about the letter dated 02.06.2014 issued by the complainant to the OP and denying the deficiency in service.
7. After going through these two vital documents i.e. Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 letter dated 16.06.2014, the issue emerges whether the OP has failed to procure the admission of the complainant for M.D.S. Course or whether the complainant himself withdrawn from the admission process and not paid the balance amount for completion of process of admission or whether the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.50,000/- as alleged in the complaint.
8. The contents of Ex.C-3 clearly reveal that once the complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- on 25.03.2014, he has not placed on record any document to show the follow up action taken by him regarding his admission. In such matter, time is the essence which is of paramount importance to the students to get admission in further course. We wonder what stopped the complainant from follow up his matter with the OP from 25.03.2014 to 12.05.2014. There is no justification or record placed before us in this regard by the complainant.
9. Perusal of Ex.C-4 clearly shows that the complainant has written some letter dated 02.06.2014 to the OP but copy of the same has not been attached with the present complaint. However, the contents of Ex.C-4 clearly reveal that the OP has obtained the admission for the complainant on 02.04.2014 and asked the complainant to pay the balance amount for completion of process of admission. The complainant has not reverted back to the OP thereafter. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any refund of the deposited amount. Rather the OP has shown its willingness to help the complainant in getting completed the admission process with the university. Rather than responding to the letter Ex.C-4 of the OP, the complainant has chosen to file the present complaint. In the absence of complete documents on record from the side of the complainant particularly the letter dated 02.06.2014 and admission letter dated 02.04.2014 issued by the University of East, Maniiland in favour of the complainant, we are unable to appreciate the concern of the complainant.
10. On account of lack of proper document in support of the contentions raised in the complaint, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
March 19, 2015
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. Sonia Bansal)
Member
