STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T.,CHANDIGARH

M/s Ganga Immigration & Education Services (P) Limited, SCO No.13-14-15, 1^stChandigarh

And in the complaint mentioned as :

1.   Chandigarh

2.           Chandigarh.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

1.   

2.   Chandigarh. Presently

…..Respondents/Complainants.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:

Argued by:Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

“11.  For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. The OPs are directed :-

i)    To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the complainants to them plus an amount of Rs.40,000/- spent by them at Malaysia total Rs.1,80,000/-.

Ii    

iii)   To make payment of an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainants towards litigation expenses.

The liability of the Ops shall be joint and several.

12.  This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainants along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.”

2.          Malaysia 

3.          MalaysiaDelhi and the arrival at Mumbai. It was further stated that the complainants exchanged Rs.28,410/- and Rs.28,281/- into MR (Malaysian Rupees) through Paul Merchants, Annexure C-9 (Colly.). It was further stated that the complainants reached Kaula Laumpur and Ms. Shradhya asked them to pay Rs.50/- MR as room rent, whereas, the accommodation was to be free of cost to be provided by the Opposite Parties.

4.          th 

5.          

6.          India as their condition was humiliating and miserable as their funds were insufficient and food, accommodation and transportation were very costly but the agents of the Opposite Parties, denied giving back their passports. It was further stated that the complainants approached Indian High Commission, who issued them emergency certificate dated 3.1.2013, on which, they travelled back to Mumbai vide return tickets (Annexure C-12). It was further stated that after returning toIndia, the complainants approached the Opposite Parties to pay back their amount, but to no effect. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, resulted into mental agony, physical harassment, and financial loss to the complainants, which amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of payment; Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

7.          

8.          

9.           

10.        

11.         

12.        Malaysia

13.            

14.            

15.         Undoubtedly, the appellants/opposite parties were deficient in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practices. 

16.        

17.        

18.        

19. 

20.        

Pronounced.

09.12.2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Ad/cmg

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.515 of 2013)

Argued by:Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

Dated the

ORDER

Ad