For the Complainant                       -  Mr. Gopal Basu, Advocate

For the OPs                                      - Mr. Sudip Poddar, Advocate

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Succinctly put, complainant’s case is that pursuant to an advertisement for Management Course from any Foreign University, complainant enrolled his name with OP Vidya.Com Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. against payment of Rs. 7,300/-. Subsequently, complainant was also asked to deposit Rs. 30,000/- for getting admission into Riga Technical University, Latvia.  Complainant deposited Rs. 30,000/- with the OP towards processing charges. On receiving Admission Offer Letter for “Entrepreneurship & Management Course” from Riga Technical University, Latvia, Complainant has paid USD 165 (i.e. Rs. 12,500/-) to the university through Thomas Cook India Ltd. and the OP-1 has given verbal assurance that his admission is confirmed. The official of the OP-1 again asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- towards VISA processing charges immediately. Complainant has appeared in the interview but he is not selected for Entrepreneurship & Management Course. Thus, the so-called assurance of his admission is false and deceitful.

Further case of the complainant is that the OP-1 again assured him to admit in Eslsca Business School, Paris and again demanded Rs. 45,000/- towards processing charges. Complainant also deposited Rs. 45,000/- to the OP-1 against receipt dated 08.12.2016. He appeared before the University but he has not been selected for Management Course. The OP-1 has provoked the complainant with false assurance of admission in reputed Foreign University and tactfully collected Rs. 94,800/- from the complainant arbitrary. The aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint directing the OPs to refund Rs. 94,800/- along with  interest @ 12 % per annum compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony and adopting unfair trade practice and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.

The OPs in their Written Version admitted that the complainant approached them to go to aboard for Management Course but if the students are not qualified by the Foreign University in that event they have no liabilities. The OPs provide services to admission procedure subject to payment of admission procedure fees and service charges. Complainant received Admission Offer Letter from Ringa Technical University Latvia and deposited money through Thomas Cook India Ltd. as per instruction of the said University. Complainant fails to go to Latvia and again requested the OPs to arrange another Foreign University for higher education. The OPs arrange Eslsco Business School, Paris but the complainant could not go to Paris in spite of getting confirmation letter on account of financial hardship. The OPs are not the NGO to provide free services to the students for their higher education in Foreign University. They provide services subject to payment of their service charges. There is no deficiency in rendering service or indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part. Thus, the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision With Reasons

Both parties led evidence through affidavit in support of their case. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Beside the same, both parties have relied upon several documents in support of their respective cases. In course of final hearing both parties have filed BNAs.

We have heard the Ld. Advocates for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully.

Fact remains that the complainant hired the services of the OPs as consultant for admission in Management Course from any reputed Foreign University. There is no dispute between the parties, that the complainant executed a Student Undertaking 20.08.2016 (copy whereof is annexed with complaint petition) in favour of OP-1 Vidya.Com Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. A sum of Rs. 94,800/- as enrolment fees, admission procedure, invitation letter fees and processing charges for Riga Technical University, Latvia and Eslsca Business School, Paris was deposited with the OP-1, by the complainant. There is also no dispute about the factum, that the complainant’s candidature was rejected by the Riga Technical University, Latvia and Eslsca Business School, Paris on the ground of non-success in the interview. Thus, the complainant, himself failed to fulfill the essential conditions to success in the interview conducted by the Riga Technical University, Latvia and Eslsca Business School, Parish.

The OP-1 is providing consultancy services, and not educational services. Its main service is to provide guidance and support in processing the University Application arranging for VISA and interviews with University, it cannot have either direct or indirect control over the admission process of a University. Its services are restricted to the point where it arranges and schedules for the interview. The admission to a University is largely depends on the caliber and performance of the candidate in the interview and tests. If a candidate is not able to secure a seat even after the interview has been scheduled with the help of the OPs then it is the sole responsibility of the candidate and not the OPs. Complainant received Admission Offer Letter from Riga Technical University and Confirmation Letter including Scholarship from Paris Eslsca Business School. University Authorities conducted interview but the complainant failed to secure the qualifying marks. On account of his own failure and poor performance in the interviews, complainant did not get his admission in Riga Technical University and Eslsca Business School, Paris. The OPs provided services to the complainant, the university and Business School issued offer letter, admission letter and scholarship letter to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Complainant paid USD 165 (i.e. Rs.12,500/-) to the university through Thomas Cook India Ltd. as per direction of Riga Technical University, Latvia not the instruction of OP-1. The fault squarely lay on the shoulders of the complainant, himself. In the instant case, the OP-1 rendered its service to the complainant for the purpose of interviews but the complainant failed secure the qualifying marks. In these circumstances, the complainant could not claim that since no service was rendered by the OPs. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to refund of amount, paid by him.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground to allow the consumer complaint. Thus, the consumer case fails and is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

                                                Ordered

That the consumer case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. We do not pass any order as to costs.