IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.18/2023 (Filed on 19/01/2023)
Complainant : Dr.Feroz.P. Saji,
SRF Homes,
Parakkavetty House,
Perunna East P.O,
Changanacherry,
Kottayam - 686 102.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. VFS Global Bengaluru,
Gopalan Innovation Mall,
Bannerghatta Main Road,
J.P Nagar,
Bengaluru – 560 076.
2. VFS Global Kochi,
S and T Arcade,
Kurisupally Road,
Ravipuram, Perumanoor,
Ernakulam – 682 016.
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant visited the first opposite party on 28/11/2022 for the purpose of getting his documents attested by the German Embassy for travelling abroad. The complainant had followed their instruction which is mentioned in their website. As instructed the complainant reported to the first opposite party and submitted all original documents and paid Rs.632/- per document to the first opposite party. Neither in the website of the opposite parties nor at the time of reporting before the first opposite party the complainant was informed about any extra payment. It is submitted in the complaint that after one week the complainant get a call from the opposite parties demanding extra payment of Rs.2,052/- per document. Since the complainant had submitted 23 documents the amount will be approximately Rs.50,000/- extra than the Rs.15,000/- which was already paid by the complainant. At this juncture the complainant informed the opposite parties not to continue forward and requested for the refund of the money which was already paid by him along with the original documents. It is averred in the complaint that due to the mis-information provided by the opposite parties the complainant has to face a lot of loss. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.14,536/- along with compensation of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as cost of this litigation.
After the admission of the complaint notice was duly issued to the opposite parties. The notice to the first opposite party returned refused. Hence it is considered as a deemed service. Notice to the second opposite party served on 20/02/2023. Despite the receipt of the notice from this Commission, the second opposite party neither care to appear before this Commission or to file version. Hence the second opposite party was declared as exparte.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows:
The first opposite party is a commercial company, working in partnership with the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany to provide support service to people applying for a visa to enter Germany. As a part of this service, the customers can also submit their relevant documents for attestation. For the purpose of attestation service, the customer needs to come in person at the respective centre. At the time of submission of the application the opposite parties with correct documents and attestation fee and sent set of documents to the German Embassy or Consulate and opposite parties will return the original documents and attested copy to the customer. In this case the complainant submitted documents on 28/11/2022 and submitted that it is under student category and therefore opposite parties only charged fees @ Rs.632/- per documents and forwarded to German Consulate for processing. However, on 29/11/2022 German Consulate instructed the opposite parties to collect additional fee of Rs.2,052/- per documents on the ground that it is not under students category as claimed by the complainant, but it is under medical professional and therefore fee to be charged is Rs.2,052/- per document. The opposite parties merely adhere to the mandate received from the Embassy and fees are not decided by the opposite party. The 1st opposite party accordingly informed the complainant and requested him to pay the requisite fees and then only documents will be attested by the attesting authority. Detailed written response was also issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. As per the relevant refund policy of the opposite party the complainant is not eligible because the opposite party performed its service as per the terms and conditions. There is no deficiency, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 to A4. No documentary or oral evidence from the part of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- f so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point number one and two together.
POINTS 1 & 2 :-
The specific case of the complainant is that in order to get his documents attested by the German Embassy he availed the service of the opposite parties. According to the complainant he had followed all the instructions of the opposite parties which was published in their website. Ext.A1 proved that the first opposite party had given an appointment to the complainant on 28/11/2022 at their German Visa Application Centre at Bangalore. It is submitted by the complainant that he had reported with the first opposite party on 28/11/2022 and submitted all his original documents to the first opposite party to get his documents attested by the Consulate of the German Republic. Exhibit A2 which is the receipt issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 28/11/2022 proves that the complainant had paid Rs.14,536/- to the opposite parties towards the attestation fee of the 23 documents. According to the complainant after one week of the appointment the opposite parties contacted him over phone and demanded to pay Rs.50,000/- more towards the attestation fee.
The first opposite party resisted the complaint stating that on 29/11/2022 the German Consulate instructed them to collect additional fee of Rs.2,052/- per document on the ground that it is not under student category as claimed by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that though the opposite party put forward such a defence, they did not adduce any evidence to prove that prior to 29/11/2022 they were unaware about the fact that additional fee of Rs.2,052/- to be collected per document. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in the form of affidavit. Being a beneficial legislation we are of the opinion that the document produced by the opposite party along with the version can be looked into for the proper disposal of the complaint. The opposite party produced an email communication which was sent by the Legal Assistant of the Consulate General of the German Republic to the opposite party. On going through the same we can see that the same was sent on 7/12/2022. The Consulate of the German Republic by the above-mentioned email returned the passport and other documents without processing by stating the reason that being a medical professional the fee to be charged as Rs.2,052/- per document. However, the opposite parties did not produce any document to prove that the German Consulate had informed them about the fee for the attestation only on 29/11/2022.
On going through the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot accept the contention of the opposite parties that being working in partnership with German Consulate they are not aware about the fee to be collected from medical professional to get the documents attested by the German Consulate. Therefore, we hold that the non-disclosure about the fee which is to be paid by the complainant is imperfection and inadequacy on the part of the opposite parties and amounts to deficiency in service. As a service provider opposite parties are bound to disclose all the conditions about the fees and other charges to their customers. On going through the print out of the website of the opposite parties we can see that they have published Rs.632/- as fee for each document and Rs.2,200/- as fee for each set of documents towards the Consulate. Had the opposite parties disclosed about the fee for the medical practitioners the complainant would not be misled and put in too much mental agony and hardship.
On a close evaluation of the above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, we allow this complaint and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.14,536/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Six only) to the complainant which is the amount collected by them as fees for the attestation along with a compensation of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only).
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of September, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Copy of Appointment letter issued by the opposite parties
A2 - Copy of Receipt dated 28/11/2022 for Rs.14,536/- issued
by the opposite parties
A3 - Copy of Screenshot of the website of the opposite parties
stating the amount for attestation
A4 - Copy of e-mail sent by the complainant dated 16/12/2022
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil.
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
