STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.    The Managing Director, RIMWEA Career Forum Ltd., SCO No.23-25, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2.    Dr.Kapil Darshan Garg, Managing Director, SCO No.23-25, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellants/OPs.

V e r s u s

Sh.Arminder Singh Sohi, s/o Jagdish Singh Sohi, resident of Dasuya, Hoshiarpur

 ....Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for the appellants.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

                    This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) has been filed by the OPs (now appellants) against the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent) against the OPs (now appellants) was allowed.

2.                Briefly stated, after being lured by the advertisement made by the OPs in the newspaper, that their Universities and Medical Colleges were approved by WHO and MCI, and also that DCI degrees from Romania was valid in 27 EU countries and the students could migrate to any European Country through ECTS, the complainant opted for MBBS Course of 5.8 years in Romania and deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 07.08.2008, with the OPs. They also obtained from him Verification Certificate for getting passport issued under ‘Tatkal’ scheme. He was surprised, when he received a letter from the Office of Global College for Diploma in Computer Studies instead of MBBS Course. He refused to accept the course of Diploma in Computer Studies. They had assured that they would themselves obtain his passport under Tatkal scheme but did not get it prepared. He approached the OPs through every possible means to settle his grievance, but all in vain, which resulted in the loss of his two precious years. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OPs as deficiency in service on their part, the complainant filed the present complaint.

3.                    On the other hand, the OPs in their written statement submitted that the complainant had contacted them for MBBS Course in Romania and deposited Rs.50,000/- on 07.08.2008. The case of the complainant was processed for the same, whereafter an offer letter no.17265 dated 14.08.2008, from the Romania Ministry of Education, Research and Youth IULIU Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, was obtained and  the complainant was pre-enrolled for the first year in the faculty of general medicine, English Division for the academic year 2008-09, as a full time student. As per the said letter the final inscription was to be initiated only after the payment of tuition fee by the complainant and also the contract was to be signed by the complainant at the beginning of the year (29th September). The complainant was asked to deposit the tuition fee with the University, as also, to sign the contract as per the offer/admission letter and further to submit the requisite documents like passport, Medical/physical examination report, but he had failed to do so, due to which he could not get VISA for Romania and for this act of the complainant, they could not be held liable for any deficiency in service.  Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                   After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 20.06.2011, as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

6.                           The OPs (now appellants) have challenged the impugned order dated 20.06.2011, through this appeal.

7.                   We have heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for the appellants and have perused the record at the time of admission of the appeal. We are of the opinion that it is not a fit case, which should be admitted for regular hearing.

8.                   There is no dispute about it that the complainant approached the OPs for admission to MBBS course in Romania and the OPs obtained from him on 07.08.2008, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, for getting him admission in the said course. It is also admitted that the OPs/appellants have not been able to get him admission in the said course. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the OPs/appellants is that infact the complainant is not having a passport and without a passport, no admission can be sought for him and therefore the deficiency if any was due to the reason that the complainant did not submit the passport and other documents to the OPs/appellants. This contention of the appellants gives a sorry state-of-affairs that the OPs knowing that he does not hold a passport obtained  fee from him for getting him admission  to a prestigious course of MBBS in foreign country. The contention of the complainant is that this fact was already known to the OPs and they allured him and assured to get his passport prepared under Tatkal scheme, for which he gave all the documents but after obtaining the fee they did not do anything. It shows that the OPs were negligent in rendering service.

9.                   As a corollary to the above arguments, the OPs were entitled to retain the amount of Rs.50,000/-, if they rendered service to the complainant. In the present case, it is admitted that no service has been rendered nor could it be rendered because the complainant, according to the OPs does not hold a passport. They did not get the passport issued to him under Tatkal scheme, as was assured while taking from him the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. If service has not been rendered, the OPs are not entitled to retain the fee. Viewed from this angle also, the OPs are liable to pay back the fee to the complainant.

10.                      As regards, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that they had even obtained from Romania, a letter Annexure R-1, pre-enrolling the complainant in faculty of general medicine and therefore there was no fault on their part and it was the fault of the complainant that he could not be sent to the foreign country. This argument also has no force. Merely producing a letter Annexure R-1 would not prove that the complainant has got pre-enrolled in any such course. It was necessary for the OPs to prove that Annexure R-1 is a genuine document and for that purpose, the affidavit of the person, who issued this letter from the University in which the complainant is alleged to have been pre-enrolled, was necessary. Since, Annexure R-1 has not been proved in accordance with law, it cannot be presumed to be a genuine document. Secondly, Annexure R-1 was never conveyed to the complainant. The OPs have not produced any letter intimating the receipt of Annexure R-1 to the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that infact they gave him the letter Annexure C-2 for admission in diploma in Computer Studies, though, he had never asked for any such course. The OPs have denied having given Annexure C-2 to the complainant but have, on the other hand, alleged that his contention proves that the complainant was in contact with the OPs and therefore is presumed to have obtained Annexure R-1 from their office. This contention was not accepted by the Learned District Forum and we also are not inclined to accept the same. Simply because one letter was handed over to the complainant (though the OPs themselves denied it) does not mean that a presumption would be drawn that  copies of the all the letters lying in the office of the OPs, had been issued to him. It appears Annexure R-1 has been fabricated subsequently to make out a defence in the present case and it has never been issued by any University or College; that is why, it was never intimated to the complainant before the filing of the present complaint. Otherwise also, before getting any such letter it was necessary for them to ensure that a passport was issued to him, may be, under Tatkal scheme as promised by them. The result is that after receiving the amount of Rs.50,000/-, the OPs made no efforts to get the complainant, a passport to get him admitted in the MBBS course and therefore, they cannot digest the amount of Rs.50,000/- received by them as fee for the said service.

11.                      It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellants that fee of Rs.50,000/- was not refundable and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get it back. We do not find any merit in this argument. If the OPs obtained the amount of Rs.50,000/- giving an assurance to the complainant that they would get him issued a passport and also admission to the MBBS course would be secured for him in a foreign country and failed to get the same, the complainant would be entitled to get back not only the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest but damages also. Needless to mention that the OPs would be entitled to the fee only, if they render service and in the present case, since no service has been rendered by them, they are not entitled to retain the fee.

12.                      The Learned Counsel for the appellant has also referred to Annexure R-2 to R-4 which according to him are the photocopies of the Visa secured by them for various other students and also a writing allegedly in their hands that proper guidance was afforded to them by the OPs. The Learned Counsel wishes us to presume that the complainant was also given proper guidance and there was no fault on the part of the OPs.  This argument is without any merit. If proper guidance has been given by the OPs, to say, four persons, it does not mean that the fifth person to whom guidance has not been given by them would be debarred from filing the consumer complaint or getting back the fee. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and imparting of proper guidance to one person cannot protect the OPs, if they had not imparted proper guidance to the complainant. Further more, the affidavits of none of these persons has been placed on file and we therefore cannot say if the writing regarding the proper guidance having been furnished is true or not. Otherwise also Annexure R-2 to R-4 show that in each case Visa of 6 months was granted by the Romanian Government. Whereas in the present case, the duration of MBBS Course was 5.8 years, say 6 years and he needed study Visa for 6 years. The OPs have not been able to produce any such document to suggest if they obtained admission for anybody in the MBBS course or any applicant has been granted 6 years study Visa. These documents therefore, do not at all, help the OPs to digest the amount of Rs.50,000/-, obtained from the complainant.

13.                      Even inspite of the fact that the OPs have not rendered service to the complainant, they did not return the fee to him and rather compelled him to file the present complaint, thereby wasting his time and energy and causing him mental agony and harassment. The Learned District Forum therefore rightly directed the OPs to pay back the amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. and also to pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and is completely in accordance with law. There is no merit in this appeal to admit it for regular hearing and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

2^nd August,  2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg