Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/713/2022

SUKHDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNRISE INTERNATIONAL /Chandigarh - Opp.Party(s)

GAGANDEEP GOEL

27 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/713/2022
Date of Institution	:	5/8/2022
Date of Decision	:	27/6/2024

 

Sh. Sukhdeep Singh aged 23 Years Son of Late Sh. Buta Singh and Smt. Balwinder Kaur R/o House No. 646-A, Sector 29-A Chandigarh.

...Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

Sunrise International / Chandigarh Through its Prop. / Authorized Person The Sunrise Building SCO 86-87, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh PIN Code 160009.

.  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gagandeep Goel, Advocate for complainant (through VC)
	:	Ms. Neihal Dogra, Advocate for OP.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated  the complainant approached the office of the OP for the purpose of applying student visa for studying in Canada as the OP had projected itself to be a leading firm in providing the students with 'Guaranteed Visa' for student education programs in Canada and further allured the complainant to invest the hard earned money of his parents for an education program in Canada in which complainant was to receive income / commission as a student consultant amounting to Lakhs of Rupees.  The counsellors in the office of the OP allured the complainant to apply for the course in the Conestoga College, Ontario for September 2020 intake for the Course and was assured that he should apply for the Course of Motive Power Technician - Heavy Duty Equipment Program and assured that the complainant shall get a visa for the said course. The complainant made certain payments to the college as directed by the OP and deposited a total fee of total of Approx. 15,803 CAD (Canadian Dollars) with the College at Canada for the above noted course and OP had assured that after the admission complainant shall be granted a student visa for attending his classes at Ontario in Canada. The complainant kept on having communications with the office staff of the OP telephonically as well as on email and they kept on assuring that the complainant will get his visa for the purpose of studying in Canada but to no avail and finally when the complainant saw no hope then he requested for a refund of his amount. It is alleged that despite repeated requests and legal notice neither the money of the complainant was refunded nor was he updated about the schedule of classes nor any Visa arrived for study abroad. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Party in its reply stated that the complainant has availed the services of the OP at his free will free of cost. The Complainant provided all documents to initiate admission into the College of his choice i.e. Conestoga College, Canada in the program of his preference i.e. Motive Power Technician Heavy Duty Equipment voluntarily willfully. The answering OP successfully obtained admission for the Complainant to the College on 13 March 2020. Unfortunately, towards the end of March 2020, the world was hit by the Covid-19 pandemic which resulted in complete global shut down for a couple of months. Resultantly, his Visa Application could only be filled on 13 August 2020 by the answering OP. On 1 September 2020, i.e only 19 days after his visa application submission, the Complainant received an AIP (Approval-in-principle) letter from IRCC which is the body responsible for immigration to Canada, wherein it was stated that 'your visa application has advanced to the next stage of processing, you may commence your studies online" This was conveyed to the Complainant on 3rd September 2020.  However, in the meantime, vide an email dated 2nd September 2020 to the answering OP, the Complainant requested a change in program at the Conestoga College (new program selected: Mechanical Engineering Technician - Automated Manufacturing), which was again obtained by the answering OP for the Complainant by 15th September 2020. Further, on 5th September 2020, the answering Respondent also shared the refund policy of the College with the Complainant as he had registered for his program on 4th September 2020. On 23 September 2020, the Complainant forwarded two emails from Conestoga College to the answering OP wherein he was apprised to attend a webinar and take a survey about his courses. Thereafter, on 29 September 2020, the Complainant forwarded another email to the answering OP wherein the details of the Timetable and program coordinators for 2020 semester were given by the College since 14 September 2020. The Complainant was duly guided by the answering OP on how to access the student portal of the College and then there was no communication from the Complainant for over one month. The Complainant received the timetable directly on the Student Portal which was his sole responsibility to access and track. The Timetable is a sine qua non for the commencement of classes irrespective of the start date mentioned on the Letter of acceptance that the Complainant is harping upon and as such any information regarding the timetable had to be accessed by the Complainant through the "Student Portal, which he failed to access till 29th September 2020. Thus, at this stage, the Complainant is merely pinning the blame for his inaction, indolent behavior, and the resultant loss of money on the answering Respondent. The Complainant contacted the answering OP after a gap of one month on 30th October 2020 stating that "he was unable to start his online classes on time and requested for refund of fee. It is alleged that the Complainant failed to commence his classes despite registering for the same and being aware of the refund policy of the college and was thus solely responsible for this huge delay and despite of that  the OP took up this matter with the College on request of the Complainant. For initiating the refund process, the answering OP required the complete bank details and an acknowledgment letter from the Complainant as per the process. Thus, the answering OP sought account details from the Complainant to initiate the process and advised the Complainant to "send an acknowledgment letter to the College from his email ID', as the same is a prerequisite for requesting a refund to a bank account which did not belong to the student (the bank account details shared belonged to the Complainant's mother). This basic requirement was not fulfilled by the Complainant till 9th December 2020, thereby rendering the answering Respondent unable to seek a refund and causing another delay. In the meantime, the answering OP had shared the visa requirement of "Biometrics" with the Complainant on 21 November 2020 which is a sine qua non for the processing of the visa application and for grant of visa. The answering Respondent emailed the College on 9th December 2020, on behalf of the Complainant, regarding the refund request and the College replied on 10th December 2020 stating that the Complainant had registered for the fall intake 2020 on 4th September 2020 and as per the refund policy of the College, he was not eligible for a refund. It is alleged that without the knowledge of the answering OP or any intimation thereof, the Complainant started communicating with Conestoga College on his own accord starting 9th December 2020. He sent emails on 14th December 2020 giving away his student ID and on 16th December 2020 citing "personal reasons" for not attending the online classes and sought refund which was refused by the college. The answering OP is merely an agent that facilitated the admission of the Complainant and once the Complainant had registered for the program, any decision on the refund of fees lies solely with the College as the fee was paid to the College directly. Thus there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.  Denying any deficiency on its party all other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. No rejoinder filed.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. Admittedly the complainant availed services of OP  for the purpose of getting education and settling abroad. It is also admitted fact that the complainant paid  15803 CAD with the collage at Canada   towards the total fee of two semesters out of which the fee of second semester amounting to 7883 CAD has been refunded to the complainant   and this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking compensation and cost of litigation as he was harassed physically and mentally by the OP.
7. After going through the documents on record it is admitted fact on the part of the OP that it earned commission of 1250 CAD at the prevailing rates of 55.96 indian rupees @1 CAD equal to Rs.69,956. Thus it  is abundantly clear that the OP provided service to the complainant for earning commission from the complainant.  Thus, the complainant is certainly a consumer qua the OP despite the fact that entire fee of the full course was paid to the concerned college, which was unknown/alien to the complainant before meeting to the OP.  In our opinion it is the OP who made the mind of the complainant to get best education at that particular institution at Canada and at the instance of OP total fee of 15803 CAD  paid by complainant to concerned college  out of which 7883CAD  has already been refunded and remaining amount is still lying with that particular institution despite the fact that  the complainant could not attend even a single class.
8. Now the main point to be considered is that what for the complainant wanted to have service of OP. The answer to the same is very simple that a young boy of age 23 years wanted to get best education abroad and wanted to settle there but admittedly neither the complainant attended even a single class nor could get the VISA to settle abroad and as such his dream to fly Canada and settle there got frustrated due to the act of OP even after spending huge amount of hard earned money of his parents. In our opinion due to inactive approach of the OP the complainant himself sent messages to the college time and again with whom the complainant deposited the fee that in the absence of VISA and his personal circumstances he was unable to attend the classes and therefore, requested for refund and he was denied the first semester fee as per terms and conditions of the college. It is clear cut admission on the part of the OP that due to attitude of the complainant for non-continuation  of course with the college in question they were deprived of getting remaining commission of the second semester which itself shows the greed of the OP. There is nothing on record to show that even a single effort was made by the OP to get the refund of his first semester fee from the college concerned.  Evidently not even a single class was attended by the complainant, the non-active approach of the OP and non-refunding the full fee by the so called education institution/college itself is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the OP being the main service provider is liable to refund the remaining fee/amount to the complainant to the tune of Rs.7920 CAD (i.e. 15803-7883) alongwith compensation.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP is directed as under:-

1. to refund Rs.4,43,203/ ( i.e. 7920CAD x Rs.55.96(the prevailing rates of CAD) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay ₹50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000 to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days,  instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses..
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
27/6/2024
mp