Date of Filing: 18.01.2008<br /> Date of Order:16.09.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 183 OF 2008<br /> A. Balakrishnan<br /> S/o. Adithan<br /> R/at U-20, Ganesha Block<br /> Seshadripuram, 1st Main Road<br /> Bangalore 560 019 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. TASMAC<br /> (For Cesar Ritz University)<br /> Represented by its Admission Executive<br /> Ms. Syeda Faheem<br /> SF-9, Business Point<br /> 137, Brigade Road<br /> Bangalore 560 001<br /> <br /> 2. Cesar Ritz University<br /> Represented by Admin Executive<br /> Ms. Shalka Palkar<br /> TASMAC, Tasmac House<br /> Plot No. 14, Industrial Area<br /> Vimananagar, Pune 411 001<br /> <br /> 3. Mr. Firozi Merchant<br /> Consulate General of Switzerland<br /> 102, Maker Chamber IV, 10th Floor<br /> 222, Nariman Point<br /> Mumbai 400 021<br /> <br /> 4. University Centre Cesar Ritz<br /> Represented by its Director of Admissions<br /> Mr. Jonathan Hilton<br /> Sebastiansplatz 4<br /> 3900 Brig, Switzerland Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> The case of the complainant is as under:<br /> The complainant states that he had applied for post graduate course in Master of Business Administration in Hotel and Tourism Management at Cesar Ritz Colleges Switzerland, through the 1st opposite party and a copy of the application is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A. The complainant states that he had made CHF 3000-00 (Three Thousand Swiss Francs) as payment for the operating account for complainant on 03.01.2007 through Citibank and the same is produced herewith and marked as Annexure B. The 4th opposite party college has acknowledged the receipt of the said payment vide receipt dated 09.04.2007 and a copy of the same is produced herewith and marked as Annexure C. The complainant submits that he had availed bank loan for the purpose of payment of CHF 3000-00 (Approximately Rs. 1,10,000/- in Indian Currency) and he had further applied for educational loan, as he was from poor family background and since he could not get that remaining amount inspite of his best efforts, as he had to postpone for the said reason, he requested for refund of CGF 3000-00, as he was unable to take up that course and accordingly he sent a e-mail on 09.03.2007. The complainant was also suffering from ill-health problem, however since he was a serious aspirant and due to unavoidable and bonafide reasons he could not pursue with the studies and infact he had to pay the interest for the amount already availed by him which itself goes to show that he was seriously pursuing the studies. The complainant submits that he once again sent e-mail on 17.12.2007 to the 4th opposite party, however he could not get refund of the amount. The complainant continuously followed up the matter with the 1st, 2nd and 4th opposite parties of the above mentioned, however the same was of no avail. The complainant being aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite party was constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court. The complainant submits that he asked for refund of the amount for bonafide reasons and not intentional. The complainant was not getting any extra amount to withdraw from the course, but it is due to beyond his control, however the opposite party protracted matters without understanding the sensitivity and problems of the complainant. Admittedly the payment made by the complainant was used for the extra costs which the complainant has on campus, health insurance, books, internet access, use of uniforms, etc., however the opposite party deliberately withheld the amount inspite of being fully aware that the complainant was a serious aspirant and infact he is not benefiting from withdrawing from the course, however the opposite party jumped to various illogical conclusions thereby delaying the payment, hence the opposite party is guilty of deficient and negligent service rendered to the complainant, who is the ultimate sufferer, resulting in financial losses and mental agony. Hence, the complainant seeks intervention of this Hon’ble Forum to render justice.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel. Notice to opposite parties No. 2, 3 & 4 served. Reply from opposite party No. 3 received. Opposite party No. 2 & 4 not appeared and they have not sent their version. Opposite party No. 1 has filed defence version stating that even though the complainant has not made any payment to the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party also is in no way concerned with the refund of the amount demanded by the complainant from the 4th respondent, the matter is purely between the complainant and the 4th opposite party and complainant is not entitled for refund of any amount from the 4th opposite party, the 1st opposite party, purely as a gesture of goodwill towards the complainant, requested the 4th opposite party several times to consider the complainant’s request but the 4th opposite party took a stand that as per its refund/ cancellation policy printed in the application form to which the complainant has agreed in writing, the complainant was not eligible for refund of any amount. There is no lack of efforts on the part of the 1st opposite party intending to the request of the complainant for refund of the amount paid to the 4th opposite party, even though the 1st opposite party was under no obligation to do so. The complainant has neither made any payment to the 1st opposite party nor claimed refund of any amount from it before filing of the complaint. There is also no averment in the complaint that any amount is due from the 1st opposite party. The prayer sought in the complaint is not against all opposite parties but against one opposite party only, who, for the reasons stated above, can only be the 4th opposite party. Thus, considered from any angle, the complaint is not maintainable as against the 1st opposite party. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether the opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 can be directed to refund the fee paid by the complainant?”<br /> 5. Opposite party No. 1 submitted that he is no way concerned with the refund of the amount. As a gesture of goodwill he requested 4th opposite party to consider the request of the complainant. Opposite party No. 3 the Consul General of Switzerland has written a letter dated 04.03.2008 to this forum. The letter is as follows:<br /> “Notice under section 13 of Consumer Protection Act – Complaint No. 183/2008<br /> Dear Sir,<br /> This has reference to the complaint filed by Mr. A. Balakrishnan of Bangalore, through your office, on my assistant, Ms. Firozi Merchant of this Consulate General, Ms. Merchant has been names as the Repondent No. 3 in your complaint notice.<br /> I may mention here that, this Consulate General is in no way, responsible or liable for securing any refund of fees that the complainant may have faced with the Swiss School. This Consulate General cannot influence or force the School for such a refund. However, it may be mentioned here that, on our intervention for Mr. Balakrishnan with the School, the school was willing to reconsider his case, provided he could furnish them with documentary evidence supporting his claim for such a refund.<br /> This was conveyed to Mr. Balakrishnan by this Consulate General, via an e-mail which was sent by Ms. Firozi Merchant, who only acted in her official capacity, as my assistant in answering Mr. Balakrishnan’s mails. It was also mentioned that Mr. Balakrishnan should address his mails directly to the school for any further matters. A copy of the same is enclosed for your ready reference.<br /> Keeping the above in mind, you will appreciate that Mr. Balakrishnan has no case against either Ms. Firozi Merchant or this Consulate General, which is a diplomatic mission in India.<br /> May I, therefore, request you/your client, not to involve this Consulate General any further in this case and let me have your assurance for the same, in writing.<br /> Hoping to have resolved the above matter satisfactorily, I remain.<br /> Yours faithfully,<br /> The Consul General of Switzerland<br /> Peter E. Specker”<br /> 6. Another letter by the opposite party No. 3 is also produced by the complainant. This letter also suggests that the complainant shall deal with opposite party No. 4 directly and they are willing to reconsider the case of the complainant and opposite party No. 3 suggested that the complainant shall directly correspond with the school and resolve the issue. The complainant has produced a latest letter dated 05.08.2008 of opposite party No. 4. This, mail is as follows:<br /> “Dear Balakrishnan,<br /> We have been contacted by our agent in India, Tasmac, stating that you have had a favourable outcome for the claim you made with the ombudsman in India.<br /> At the moment I am waiting for confirmation of this from our agent so that we can consider the decision and its implications. If the decision is against us I would need to have your bank details to make any payment so you should arrange to send this to me.<br /> Best regards,<br /> Jonathan Hilton<br /> Director of Admissions & Enrollment<br /> Cesar Ritz” Colleges Switzerland<br /> Tel: +41 024 482 8898<br /> Fax: +41 024 482 8899<br /> jonathan.hilton@ritz.edu<br /> www.ritz.edu”<br /> 7. The application form submitted by the complainant also has got an option of cancellation, withdrawal, refund and waiver. Admittedly, the complainant has paid CHF 3000 (in Indian Currency Rs. 1,10,000/-) for admission to the course in Master of Business Administration in Hotel and Tourism Management at Cesar Ritz Colleges Switzerland. Through opposite party No. 1 the complainant had applied for an educational loan since he is coming from poor family background and he could not get the remaining amount. Therefore, he was unable to take up the course due to financial difficulty. The complainant could not pursue his studies with the opposite party No. 4 school. Therefore, the complainant has sought for refund of amount for bonafide reasons. The cancellation or withdrawal from the course was beyond the control of complainant. Due to unavoidable and bonafide reasons he could not pursue the studies. Therefore, complainant made several correspondence and request to opposite parties for refund of the amount paid by him. The unilateral policy of the school in respect of refund of fee in case of cancellation or withdrawal will not be binding on the complainant. The withdrawal or cancellation of admission by the complainant was not intentional. It was on account of his financial difficulty. Therefore, the bonafide student cannot be denied benefit of refund on the ground that fee once paid is not refundable. The complainant has not taken any services from the opposite parties. Without giving service the opposite parties cannot be allowed to take benefit of getting fee from the complainant. If the amount paid by the complainant is not refunded it amount to unfair and illegal gain to the opposite parties. The complainant is a student coming from poor family, for bonafide reasons he could not pursue the education and he has sought for refund of the fee paid by him. This complaint of the complainant is just and reasonable. Consumer Protection Act 1986 enacted by the Parliament of India is a social and benevolent legislation. It protects better interests of the consumers. The opposite party No. 4 has also come forward to relax the rules and to refund the amount. The complainant was asked to give bank details for making payments. This assurance was sent to the complainant by a latest mail dated 05.08.2008. Notice to opposite party No. 4 was served and no body represented opposite party No. 4 before this forum. Therefore, the case of complainant has gone unchallenged. The complainant during the course of argument submitted that if 50% of the amount paid by him is refunded he will be satisfied. This gesture shown by the complainant is appreciated. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case it is very just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party No. 1, 2 & 4 to refund Rs. 55,000/- (50% of the amount paid) to the complainant. I feel it would meet the ends of justice. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 55,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. <br /> 9. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings.<br /> 10. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 are directed to pay the amount to the complainant directly by way of cash / DD with intimation to this forum.<br /> 11. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs as per statutory requirements. <br /> 12. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> I concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER <br />