BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 24.12.2013

Date of Order : 31.10.2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 894/2013

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beenakumari, Member

A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as follows:-

The complainant Dr. Sumesh who is a veterinary surgeon had entered into service at Irikkur Veterinary Dispensary on 27.07.2012. He had came to know about the Star International Education consultancy vide a news-paper advertisement on 06.08.2012 who were engaged in the recruitment business of individuals who are interested in pursuing their higher studies abroad. The complainant contacted the above said Mumbai based agency through their franchisee in Kerala namely HI Tech Education and Career Consultancy who are the 4^th opposite party in this complaint. The 4^th opposite party told the complainant that there was a September, 2012 – intake to the University College of Dublin, Ireland for Ph.D and assured the complainant that he could join the above said course on scholarship basis. On 12.08.2012 the complainant handed over Rs.1,13,500/-to the 3^rd opposite party Shri Nirmal Pandey who was introduced by the 1^st opposite party as the Director of Star Inter International Education Consultancy, Mumbai and also handed over the attested photocopies of the credentials to the 3^rd opposite party. The third opposite party issued a voucher to the complainant acknowledging the receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,13,500/-. Later the 3^rd opposite party handed over the offer letter dated 27.08.2013 of the University College of Dublin to the complainant. In the meantime the complainant applied for leave for pursuing his higher studies and the leave was sanctioned by the Director,. Department of Animal Husbandry on 02.11.2012. But the 4^th opposite party informed the complainant that the admission process had been closed early on 29.10.2012. However the 4^th opposite party assured that he could arrange an admission for the complainant in the 2013 batch for which the complainant paid a further amount of Rs. 49,500/- towards processing charges as demanded by the 4^th opposite party. On 04.10.2013 the complainant received a show cause notice from the department of Animal Husbandry informing that the offer letter submitted by the complainant along with the application of leave was a forged one and asked the complainant to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It is only at that time complainant realized that he was cheated by the opposite parties by making false promises. The complainant therefore contended that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had sustained huge monetary losses and suffered severe mental agony. The complainant sought for an order of this Forum directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice omitted by the opposite parties.

2. Notices were issued to all the four opposite parties. Notices to 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties were returned unserved as the addressee ' left' and the other notices to 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties were returned as the addressee ' not known'. Hence all the opposite parties are set exparte and this complaint is disposed of exparte after hearing the Counsel for the complainant

3. The evidence in this case consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidences marked as Exts. A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant.

4. From the averments in the complaint filed by the

complainant, the following issues emanated for

the consideration of this Forum :

i) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in

service and unfair trade practice on the part of the

opposite parties ?

ii) If so whether the complainant is entitled to get refund

of the amount paid to the opposite parties along with

interest thereon ?

iii) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay

compensation and costs of the proceedings to the

complainant ?

5, Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) :

The complainant Dr. Sumesh had come to know that the 1^st opposite party Star International Education Consultancy vide a news-paper advertisement on 06.08.2012 who were engaged in the recruitment business of individuals for their higher studies abroad. The first opposite party namely Star International Education consultancy is a Mumbai-based agency and the 4^th opposite party Shri Rajeneesh, Proprietor of M/s Hi Tech Education and career consultancy at Kakkand, Ernakulam is the franchisee of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant accordingly approached the Kerala Office of 1^st opposite party at Kakkanad i.e. 4^th opposite party who told the complainant that there was September, 2012- intake of candidates for Ph.D in the University College of Dublin, Ireland and the complainant handed over an amount of Rs. 1,13,500/- towards processing charges to the 3^rd opposite party Shri Nirmal Pandey to whom the complainant was introduced by the proprietor of the 4^th opposite party. The complainant also handed over the attested photostat copies of his credentials to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. The third opposite party Shri Nirmal Pandey also issued a cash receipt dated 11.08.2012 in token of having received Rs.1,13,500/- from the complainant as evidenced by Ext. A1. Thereafter the complainant applied for leave for pursuing higher studies abroad and the leave was sanctioned by the Director of Animal Husbandry on 02.11.2012. When the complainant approached the 4^th opposite party Shri Rajaneesh with the above order, the complainant was informed that the admission process had been closed early on 29.10.2012. But the 4^th opposite party assured the complainant that he could arrange admission for the complainant in the 2013 batch and he demanded a further amount of Rs. 49,500/- towards processing charges. The complainant paid the above said amount. Though the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show the payment of Rs. 49,500/- it is proved by the complainant by filing an exparte proof affidavit. Thereafter on 04.10.2013 the complainant received a show cause notice from the department of Animal Husbandry stating that Ext. A2 offer letter dated 27.08.2012 submitted along with the application for leave was a forged one and the complainant felt that he was cheated by the opposite parties by making false promises and the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service in not procuring admission to Ph. D full time course of 4 years 6 months with scholarship in the University College of Dublin in the Republic of Ireland. We find that the complainant had paid Rs. 1,13,500/- towards service charge for admission process, admission fee, postal charges, service tax etc. on 11.08.2012 as evidenced by Ext. A1 cash receipt. But nothing was done by the opposite parties till 02.11.2012 on which date leave for higher studies was sanctioned to the complainant. The in-action on the part of the opposite parties clearly amounted to deficiency in service on their part. More over the notices sent to the address given to the complainant were all returned unserved stating that 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties were 'left' and 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties were unknown in the locality. The above fact points out to the unfair trade practice practised by the opposite parties. We find that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and unfair trade practice committed by them in view of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. In the circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,63,000/-from the opposite parties along with interest thereon.

6. Issue No. (iii) :

The complainant prayed for an award of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is entitled to get compensation, but complainant has snot established an extra ordinary case with sufficient facts and evidences to entitle himself to get such a big amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards compensation. We find, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by him and for the inconveniences caused to him by the irresponsible action and unfair trade practice practised by the opposite parties.

7. It is seen that the complainant is unnecessarily dragged to the Consumer Forum to redress his grievances. Had the opposite parties refunded the money received by them to the complainant when they could not procure an admission for the complainant for the Ph. D full time course which commenced in September, 2012, this complaint would not have filed by the complainant. The notices sent to the opposite parties were also returned unserved as ' left ' or ' unknown '. The complainant had to make a paper publication to intimate the opposite parties about the consumer complaint proceeded against them. Thus the complainant had to spent much of his valuable time and money for contesting the matter before this Forum. Therefore we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs of proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case and we fix the costs at Rs. 10,000/-.

9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows :

1. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund

an amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- to the complainant with

interest @ 12% per annum from the date of

payment i.e.from 1.08.2012 till the date of realization.

2. The opposite parties shall also jointly and severally

pay Rs.75,000/- towards compensation to the compla-

inant and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of proceedings

to the complainant.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order failing which the amounts due will carry interest @ 18% per annum till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of November, 2015.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch of the Order :

By Post :

By Hand :

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :- Nil