STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

1. M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd.(Non-Operational) through its authorized representatives at  T4B, 3rd Floor, Centra Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Directors  Sh.Harkanwar Singh, Sh.Karanbir Singh and Sh.Deepinder SBS Johar.

IInd Address: House No.535, Phase 10, Mohali-160062.

IIIrd Address: House No.2164, Part 4, Phase 7, Mohali-160062.

IVth Address: Flat No.D-204, Ivory Tower, Sector 70 Mohali-

2. Sanjay Babu Tetakala, International Admission Manager (Pan India, #6-3-252/1/7/1,  Hyderabad, Telangana.

                                                                                                                ...  Appellants.

                                               Versus

Rohan Rana S/o Sh.Kuldeep Singh Rana R/o H.No.61-B, Sector 29-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                      ..... Respondent

Appeal under  Section 41 the Consumer Protection Act,2019 against order dated 12.10.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.327/2021.

Argued by:  S/ Sh.G.S.Khera & Yoginder Nagpal,  Advocates for the                                appellants.                                                      

                    Sh.Sunitt Chauhaan,  Advocate for  the respondent

__________________________________________________________

 Rohan Rana, aged 25 years S/o Sh.Kuldeep Singh Rana, R/o House No.61-B, Sector-29-A, Chandigarh.

Now resident of House No.258-A, Tribune Society, Kansal, District SAS Nagar, Mohali-160103                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ...  Appellant.

                                               Versus

1.  M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. T4B, 3rd Floor, Centra Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Directors  namely Sh.Harkanwar Singh, Sh.Karanbir Singh and Sh.Deepinder Shamsher Johar Bahadur Singh.

IInd Address: House No.535, Phase 10, Mohali-160062.

IIIrd Address: House No.2164, Part 4, Phase 7, Mohali-160062.

IVth Address: House  No.D-204, Ivory Tower, Sector 70 Mohali- 160062

2. Sanjay Babu Tetakala, International Admission Manager (Pan India, #6-3-252/1/7/1,  Road No.1, Next to Taj Deccan Hotel, Erra Manzil Colony, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad-500034, Telangana

                                                                       ..... Respondents

Appeal under  Section 41 the Consumer Protection Act,2019 against order dated 12.10.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.327/2021.

­­­­

BEFORE:      MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by : Sh.Sunitt Chauhaan,  Advocate for  the appellant. 

                      S/ Sh.G.S.Khera & Yoginder Nagpal,  Advocates for the                                 respondents

  PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                     This  order will dispose of aforementioned two   appeals bearing Nos. 327 of 2023 titled as M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs Rohan Rana  and appeal bearing No. A/16 of 2024 titled as Rohan Rana Vs M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. & another both arising out of one and  the common  order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint of the complainant Rohan Rana was allowed in the following terms ;

 “In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹4,00,000/-  each by OPs No.1&2  to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.”

2.              The facts are being taken from  appeal No.327 of 2023 titled as  M/s Jakara international Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs Rohan Rana.

                   As per facts of the case, Opposite Party No.1/appellant is running a consultancy by the name of “Jakara International Pvt. Ltd.”  and engaged in the business of providing consultancy services for overseas education including  immigration and post visa services. The complainant, being a student, was interested to pursue overseas studies and after going through alluring advertisements given by OP No.1/appellant, contacted it for getting study visa. After perusing the documents of the complainant, OP No.1 advised him to apply in European countries for the Course of International Hospitality Management. The total consultancy fee for providing services to the complainant was fixed as Rs.1,50,000/-, out of which the father of the complainant deposited  Rs.35,000/- on 20.02.2019  vide receipt Annexure C-2. OP  No.1 called the complainant and assured that he will get admission in Warsaw International Business School at Poland . The complainant provided his curriculum vitae and OP No.1 further demanded Rs.55,000/-  which were paid vide receipts attached as annexure C-3 & C-4. On 9.08.2019, OP No.1 handed over an offer letter issued by Zabieski Foundation from Warsaw, Poland for specialist Business Course in International Business for one year duration commencing from 1.10.2019 to 30.09.2020 with programme details, cost of Course, application process payment/bank details etc. The father of the complainant then deposited registration fee of 250 EUR as well as course fee of 3000 EUR on 19.8.2019. It was OP NO.1, who was to arrange the appointment of the complainant for getting visa but it completely failed to provide the services to the complainant to get visa for Poland in time. Finally, on 21.10.2019, the complainant through email asked  OP No.1  for cancelling of  his admission and requested for refund of money.    Thereafter, it  contacted the father of the complainant  and offered to send the complainant to France for study purpose with the  help of OP No.2, an authorized representative of SHG France and all queries and correspondence would have to be done through OP No.2. It further assured the complainant to adjust the consultancy fee for the same to which the father of the complainant agreed.   After completing all the formalities of  pre-visa interview including deposition of fee of Rs.14,750/-, the  complainant attended the same and qualified the interview for visa and deposited Rs.8764/- on 18.01.2020 vide receipt Annexure C-20.  On 4.1.2020, OP No.2 informed that location study course has been changed from Strasbourg to NICE (France) which shall commence on 17.02.2020 due to the reason of late filing of visa documents (Annexure C-21). Thereafter, on 12.02.2020 OP No.2 intimated that there shall not be any accommodation facility at NICE (France) and complainant will have to manage accommodation at his own. Since there was no other alternative with the complainant, father of the complainant booked accommodation for 2 days on the suggestion of OP No.2. On reaching NICE (France) to the surprise of complainant there were only 2 rooms of so-called campus and there were 3-4 students at that place. It was for the complainant to manage everything at his own.  The complainant stayed at Nice (France) for 7 days and returned to India on 19.02.2020. The complainant visited office of the opposite parties and demanded refund. Even various emails were sent but the same were not replied to. When the complainant failed to get any tangible result, he filed a consumer complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission seeking refund of the total fee paid alongwith interest, besides compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation. 

3.                   Pursuant to issuance of notice,  Opposite Party No.1/appellant   appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint. In its written version, it was stated that  the complainant availed services  only to the extent of securing offer letter, pre-acceptance letter, and visa interview only , which complainant has  accepted in his complaint being provided to him by OP No.1 without disclosing any violation on the part of it.   It was further stated  that the complainant was  not a “consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection  Act, since the complainant hired the services of OP No.1 and in turn availed the services for reaching out to university for studying which was concluding part of services being rendered by OP No.1. There was no  deficiency in rendering service because complainant himself is admitting everywhere that he himself chose the university or destination to study after hiring services of OP No.1 which was limited to get him visa not to make him sit in university. It was further stated that the complainant was not having any adequate educational scoring for studying abroad in highly marked universities and he was refused admission by various foreign universities.  The other allegations were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   Opposite Party No.2  despite service through substitute mode of service by way of publication in the newspaper, did not appear  before the Learned District Commission and suffered ex parte proceedings

5.                On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record by the parties, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the complaint of the  Complainant, as noted in the opening para of this order.   

6.                Aggrieved against the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, Opposite Parties  filed   appeal bearing No.327 of 2023 for setting aside the impugned order whereas Appeal No.16 of 2024 has been filed by the complainant for modification of the impugned order by enhancing the amount of compensation etc. 

7.                       We have heard learned Counsel for the parties , and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

8.              It is case of the appellants that father of the respondent alongwith one Gurpreet Singh alleged relative of the respondent  approached the appellants and as per request of the father of the respondent they first tried admission in the college of LAVIA where the documents of the respondent could not be arranged. Thereafter the respondent applied for specialist vocational course International business at Zabielsai Foundation Poland. Father of the respondent paid fee directly to the college from his account and due to some reasons respondent was not getting the Visa date and he himself made request  to the college showing inability to join and refund of fees. The said college in Poland was suggested by Mr.Gurpreet Singh, who was married at Poland. Then France was chosen by the father of the respondent and the respondent left for France on 13.02.2020 and he returned from the France on 19.02.2020. He then wrote to the college that he did not join the college namely NICE France of SHG Group of the University due to fear of COVID-19 and stated certain personal reasons and also sent several mails and received replies which are contrary to the allegations leveled against the appellants. It was further contended that not even a single penny was charged from the respondent in spite of providing commendable services. The appellant was to receive the commission directly from the said University after three months’ continuous study of the respondent but by coming back in huff, he caused financial loss to the appellant by not receiving commission and service charges.  Thus, it was the respondent who without paying services charges to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- used the services of the appellant and had the respondent studied continuously for three months at the said college in France, the appellant would have received commission of Rs.1,00,000/-.

9.                     In other  appeal, it is contended by the appellant-Rohan Rana  that respondent No.2-Sanjay BabuTetakala was introduced by respondent No.1-M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd.  and communication was exchanged through mobile phone and email. Further  the appellant –Rohan Rana  never met  with respondent No.2 and the amount was paid to with M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd.  to get visa services, so it is M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. which is liable to pay the awarded amount. Further the Ld. Lower Commission allowed Rs.4.00 Lakhs each  i.e. Rs.8.00 Lakhs  whereas the total amount incurred by the appellant Rohan Rana works out to be Rs.10,69,829/- as such the appeal was filed to modify the impugned and grant of reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. 

 10.                A perusal of the receipts annexures C-2 , C-3 & C-4  reveals that the respondent/complainant paid Rs.35,000/- and Rs.55,000/- respectively to appellant No.1.   Annexure C-6 is the  offer letter sent to the respondent Rohan Rana  by Zabielski Foundation situated at Poland and for that purpose he paid 3250 EUR on the instructions of appellant No.1 to the aforesaid university. Annexure C-7 is the letter of acceptance and Annexure C-8 is the proof of payment of 3000 EUR and 250 EUR paid by the respondent  as annual fee and registration fee respectively  in the educational institute. However,  due to inaction on the part of the appellants, the respondent/complainant could not get  appointment for the VISA, which was promised to be acquired by the appellants. Since appellant No.1 failed to  get the VISA and therefore, respondent  sought refund of the fee amount of 3000 EUR which were paid to Zabielski foundation. Admittedly the appellants  charged for the preparation of the migration, assistance for the completion of required document and handling all the VISA correspondence and for making efforts to get issued timely VISA to the complainant but it failed to get the same and despite various requests, it also failed to refund the amount.   It was the appellants who allured the respondent again to spend huge fees amount for the purpose of another course to be opted at NICE France. Another chapter  of allurement starts when the appellants vide Annexure C-13 offered the respondent  to pursue bachelor in International Hospitality Management  with duration of three years. The Ld. Lower Commission while allowing the complaint, rightly observed as under ;

“ After thorough inspection of record it is abundantly clear that OP No.2 was alien to complainant, it was OP No.1 who got him introduced  with the complainant and motivated him again for further spending the amount of his parents’ hard earned money to the tune of 7150 EUR  as per page 60 of the paperbook. Thus it is proved on record that the complainant was entrapped by the OPs and he was shocked to know when he landed at foreign land that the college in question was not upto to the level for which fees has been charged from the complainant. In nutshell the OPs not only grabbed handsome money from the complainant but also  played with the emotions of the child and his family showing rosy picture of bright future of the complainant by alluring to settle and study in abroad. The complainant again and again requested the OP No.1 to get the fee refunded at first instance after failing to go to Poland. But instead of getting that fee refunded OP No.1 again allured the complainant to spent more amount to settle at NICE France. As per case of the complainant after investment of the aforesaid huge money as fee to the college at NICE France OP No.2 never responded his phone call. During oral arguments the OP No.1 stated that it had to receive Commission from the college only if the student/complainant would have continued the course but in the present case the complainant on his own choice did not continue with the institute/college but in our opinion as the complainant paid the total annual fee then possibility of receiving of its share of Commission by OP No.1 cannot be ruled out. Pertinently no document has been placed on record by the OPs to show the steps taken by them to get the fees refunded to the complainant.  Thus the aforesaid act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice, which caused immense mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant for which the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant heavily. “

11.                     As regards plea of the appellant-Rohan Rana in Appeal No.16 of 2024 that the amount for getting Visa etc. was paid to M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. and the other party was introduced by it  and further appellant/complainant never met respondent no.2-Sanjay Babu Tetakala, we are of the view that liability of both parties may be made joint and several. However, we find no case made out for enhancement of compensation etc.

 12.                   In view of the above discussion, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Consequently both  the appeals are   dismissed, and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld, however,  with the modification that both opposite parties in the complaint shall be liable to the pay the amount of Rs 8.00 Lakhs jointly and severally. The other part of the impugned order shall remain intact..

13.             All the pending applications in both the appeals  also stand disposed off accordingly

14.                 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.                  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                          U.T., CHANDIGARH   (Additional Bench)

 Rohan Rana, aged 25 years S/o Sh.Kuldeep Singh Rana, R/o House No.61-B, Sector-29-A, Chandigarh.

Now resident of House No.258-A, Tribune Society, Kansal, District SAS Nagar, Mohali-160103                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ...  Appellant.                                                                                                 Versus

1.       M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. T4B, 3rd Floor, Centra Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Directors  namely Sh.Harkanwar Singh, Sh.Karanbir Singh and Sh.Deepinder Shamsher Johar Bahadur Singh.

IInd Address: House No.535, Phase 10, Mohali-160062.

IIIrd Address: House No.2164, Part 4, Phase 7, Mohali-160062.

IVth Address: House  No.D-204, Ivory Tower, Sector 70 Mohali- 160062

2.          Sanjay Babu Tetakala, International Admission Manager (Pan India, #6-3-252/1/7/1,  Road No.1, Next to Taj Deccan Hotel, Erra Manzil Colony, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad-500034, Telangana

                                                                       ..... Respondents

Appeal under  Section 41 the Consumer Protection Act,2019 against order dated 12.10.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.327/2021.

­­­­ BEFORE:     MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by :   Sh.Sunitt Chauhaan,  Advocate for  the appellant. 

                        S/ Sh.G.S.Khera & Yoginder Nagpal,  Advocates for the                                respondents

                 Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in Appeal bearing No.327 of 2023 titled as M/s Jakara International Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs Rohan Rana, this appeal has been dismissed with some modification in the impugned, as stated therein.    

2.             Certified copy of the order passed in Appeal bearing No. 327 of 2023, shall also be placed on this file.

3.               Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in Appeal bearing No.327 of 2023, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

4.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.