STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

1. M/s New World Overseas Education Consultants Pvt. Ltd. S.C.O 167, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh. (Through its Director).

2. Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Director, M/s New World Overseas Education Consultants Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O 167, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.       

                                                                                           ….Appellants

                                                   Versus

Ravish Bansal S/o Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Resident of H.No.272, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh.                 

                                                                                              …. Respondent.

 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 20.03.2018 passed by  District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint   No. 544/2017.

BEFORE:          JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                    MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Manish Joshi,  Advocate for the appellants

                       Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.  

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed this appeal against order dated 20.3.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum-I, UT.Chandigarh( for short the Forum only) allowing a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, granting him the following relief ;

           a]     To refund an amount of Rs.65,000/- to the                           complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.11.2015 i.e. the date of start of the course (Ann.C-    3) till realization;

b]    to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant     incurred by him towards medical examination.

c]     To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for        the mental & physical harassment as well as loss of        precious year of the career of the complainant on             account of deficiency in service on the part of OPs;

d]     To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-

Awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a time bound manner, failing which, it was to entail penal interest.

2.           Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that with a view to get education in Australia, he consulted the OPs, who after looking into his education qualification  said that he was eligible  to get admission in some educational  institute in Australia. He was told that he can join and pursue “Aged Care Course”. It was promised by the OPs that full assistance would be provided to him to arrange his admission with the College/University and to get his study visa from the competent authority.  In the process, he paid Rs.65,000/- i.e. Rs.30,000/- towards Embassy fee to get visa and Rs.35,000/- towards consultancy charges. However, the complainant was given a receipt for Rs.35,000/- only. He was given a Letter of Offer dated 19.8.2015 to join the above course.  Further promise was made by the OPs to get visa for him in near future.  On asking of the OPs, the complainant got himself medically examined from an authorized Centre against payment of an amount of Rs.3000/-. All the documents were supplied by the complainant to the OPs. As per directions given by the OPs, he supplied his bank account showing  deposit of Rs.18.00 Lakhs in his name. Till the month of November,2015, when visa was not received, he became suspicious and asked the OPs to supply him copy of the receipt against which his application was sent to the Embassy for grant of visa.  However, it was not done so.  Again in the month of January, 2016, he approached the OPs to enquire about the status of his visa and admission in Australia.  When nothing was done, he made a request for refund of amount paid by him. When his request failed to yield any result, he sent a legal notice on 9.5.2017 which also failed to make the OPs to act in a proper manner.

3.             Upon notice, OPs put in appearance.  Reply was filed by OP No.1, which was adopted by OP NO.2, by making statement on 14.11.2017. The Forum has noted down the stand taken up by the OPs, to the complaint filed, in the following manner ;

“OP-1 in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix. It has been averred that OP-1 is doing the business of providing consultation to the students with regard to their admission in various Foreign Colleges/ Institutes. Besides that OP-1 is also facilitating the students for completion of their documents required to be submitted before the concerned high commission for their Visa purposes and for that it is charging Rs.35,000/- from each student  which is non-refundable.  Thereafter the case of the complainant was submitted with Einstein College of Australia and the said college issued letter of offer after which OP-1 facilitated the complainant for completion of documents required to be submitted before the High Commission of Australia for visa purposes. The complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to OP-1 as Embassy fee to be paid to Australian Embassy after which OP-1 submitted the complete file with the Australian Embassy and paid the amount of Rs.28,136/- to the concerned Embassy on 22.1.2016 which was also non-refundable.  It has been contended that OP-1 performed its part of obligation with utmost sincerity, but, the complainant could not get admission in the college due to rejection of visa by the Australian High Commission. It has been contended that issuance of Visa by the concerned Embassy is not in the hands of OP. the medical of the complainant was got done as per the requirement of Australian High Commission.”

By stating above, it was averred by the OPs that there was no deficiency in providing service and as such complaint be dismissed.

4..          Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed,  allowed the complaint in the manner, as referred to above in paragraph No.1 of this order. 

5.          It was specifically stated by the Ops that the complainant failed to get admission in a college in Australia on account of non-issuance of Visa by the Australian Embassy at Delhi. The OPs have no control so far as grant of Visa is concerned. The Forum dealt with the said averment in the following manner ;

  “A bare perusal of Annexure C-3, admittedly got issued by the OPs, i.e. Letter of Offer and Written Agreement International Student dated 19.08.2015 from Einstein College of Australia, reveals that the orientation/commencement date of the course adopted by the complainant was 16.11.2015 and the finish date was 01.07.2016.  Since, the commencement date of the course of the complainant was 16.11.2015, therefore, the OPs was obviously to submit/present the Visa application of the complainant before the said date i.e. well before 16.11.2015 with the concerned Embassy.  However, it is admitted case of the OPs that they have submitted/presented the application of the complainant on 22.1.2016 i.e. after the start of the course of the complainant.  This very facts itself proves the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs.  Thus, it is also established that due to late submission of visa application of the complainant, after the date of commencement of the course, it resulted in the rejection of visa application whereby the concerned embassy opined and rejected the application on the ground that the applicant is not a genuine applicant.  We are of the opinion that certainly when the visa application of the complainant has been submitted after the commencement of the course date, in such set of circumstances, any embassy or authority would definitely doubt the genuineness of the applicant.   Had the OPs presented the visa application of the complainant before the concerned embassy well before the commencement date of the course, the position certainly would have been different.   Furthermore, there is no justification from the side of the OPs as to why they did not present the visa application of the complainant/ applicant well before the orientation/commencement date of the course.”   

6.          It was rightly noted by the Forum that the appellants/OPs were deficient in providing service.  It was observed that the study  course qua which offer letter was got issued by the OPs from a College situated in Australia was to start on 16.11.2015 and to finish on 1.7.2016. In view of the above fact, it was incumbent upon the OPs to apply for visa before the commencement of the course, as referred to above. By noting that application to get visa was forwarded by the OPs only on 22.1.2016 i.e. after commencement date of the course, it was rightly said that the OPs were deficient in providing service.  Not only as above, when hearing the appeal we have gone through the order passed by the Australian Embassy on 2.4.2016 rejecting application of the complainant to get entry visa in the Australia. A thorough perusal indicates that despite claiming that the appellant No.1 was a specialized   agency in education consultancy, when moving application of the complainant to get visa, sufficient reason to get stay  in Australia was not given. Noting the same it was rejected. Perusal of the order Annexure R.2 clearly indicates that the OPs have dealt with the matter in a very casual manner. It appears that requisite information was not supplied to the Embassy which resulted into rejection of visa application moved at the instance of the complainant. The order passed by the Forum is quite justified.    No case is made out to  interfere in the order, under challenge.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,  with no order as to costs.   The order of the District Forum is upheld. 

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

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