BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.417 of 2014
Date of institution: 09.06.2014
Date of Decision: 03.08.2015
Kuldeep Kour daughter of Baldev Singh resident of Ward 9A, House No.526, Dashmesh Nagar, Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Videshyatra.com, SCO 939, Near Narinder Cinema, Prestige Chamber, Jalandhar through its Manager/Partners/Authorised representative.
2. Videshyatra.com, SCO 939, Near Narinder Cinema, Prestige Chamber, Jalandhar through its Manager/Partners/Authorised representative.
3. Videshyatra.com, SCO 917-918, First Floor, Namrita Complex, Jalandhar through its Manager/authorised representative.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ARGUMENTS HEARD AND DECIDED BY
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite Parties Ex-parte.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint on the pleadings that she wanted to pursue course from abroad for upgrading her qualification and came to know through the advertisement issued by the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) in the newspaper wherein they claimed that they send students abroad for study purpose. The complainant approached the OPs where she met Surya who introduced himself as the counselor of the OPs. After detailed discussion, the OPs confirmed that they would help her in getting admission in the course in the college situated at London. The complainant was told to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards course fee, processing fee and embassy fee alongwith required documents to the OPs. The OPs told the complainant to enter into one agreement. The agreement was drafted in such a manner that it was in favour of the OPs and against the interests of the complainant. Believing upon the words of the OPs, the complainant put her signatures on the agreement. The careful perusal of document shows that the agreement has not been signed by the OPs but been signed by some other company which is totally alien to the complainant and as such the agreement is not binding at all. Upon visit the college, the complainant found that the premises were locked and no college was functioning. The complainant informed the OPs about the status of the college. The OPs informed her that they are aware of the closure of the college and assured her that she would be given admission in some other college. The complainant alleged that Ops are very much aware about the closure of the college and extracted the money from the consumers including the complainant by indulging in unfair trade practice. The Ops have cleverly mentioned that amount of Rs.4,74,000/- is going to be Scott College, London as college fee and the OP Nos.1 and 2 takes no responsibility of college fee and this amount is not refundable under any circumstance. The OPs were acting as agent of college of London and there is relationship of principal and agent between them and the OPs cannot absolve from their liability of refund of fee. The complainant has paid the fee to the Ops and credited it in their account. The OPs have not paid any fee to college rather kept the money in their pocket on false pretext of providing the admission. The complainant left India on 17.09.2012 and returned to India on 14.02.2013. She bore all the expenses of food on her without any assistance from the OPs. It is a case of clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Lastly the complainant prayed to this Forum to give direction to the OPs:
(a) to refund her Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of deposit till payment.
(b) to pay her Rs.2,00,000/- for expenses incurred by her for staying from 17.09.2012 to 14.02.2013.
(c) to pay her Rs.50,000/- for cancellation of tickets twice.
(d) to pay her Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and physical harassment.
(e) to pay her Rs.51,000/- towards litigation expenses.
(f) any other relief which this Forum deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the complaint.
2. After admission of the complaint, notices sent to the OPs. OP No.2 was duly served but none appeared for it. Vide daily order dated 06.05.2015 the complainant filed fresh address of OP No.1 and 3. The address of OP No.1 is the same address which is the address of OP No.2. OP No.1 and 3 refused to receive the notice issued to them. None appeared for them and presuming their absence as willful, the OP Nos.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 02.12.2014 and 09.06.2015.
3. The complainant placed on record her affidavit Exb.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Exb.C-1 to C-7.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the file.
5. To prove the contents of the complaint the complainant namely Kuldeep Kour has filed her affidavit which is Exb.CW-1/1. As the complainant has availed services of the OP for consideration so the complainant is held consumer of OP. There is a direct dealing between the complainant and OP No.1 and the complainant had paid the amount to the OP No.1 and at the instance of OP No.1. Complainant proved credit of an amount of Rs.4.00 lacs vide transaction which is Exb.C-5. Further it is observed that OP No.1 has imposed some terms and conditions upon the complainant which are unilateral in nature and, therefore, they are not binding upon the complainant. OP No.1 got the complainant admitted in Scott College, London which was closed when the complainant reached there. OPs omitted/failed to appear and file their written version to rebut the complaint. So in the absence of any rebuttal to the complaint by the OPs, the complaint of the complainant stands proved against the OPs. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice o the part of OP No.1 as OP No.1 was well aware that Scott College was closed. Further OP No.1 is held negligent because OP No.1 neither refunded the amount to the complainant no took any step to redress the grievance of the complainant. OP No.1 is duty bound to refund the amount to the complainant or redress her grievance which OP No.1 has never performed. Thus, the complainant is entitled to not only refund of her paid amount to OP No.1 but also compensation for the negligent act of the OP No.1. She is further entitled to cost of litigation expenses on account of bearing unnecessary litigation despite service of legal notice upon the OPs.
6. In view of above mentioned reasons the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 namely
Videshyatra.com, SCO 939, Near Narinder Cinema, Prestige Chamber, Jalandhar through its Manager/Partners/Authorised representative.
is held liable and is directed to:-
(a) to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of payment till its actual realisation.
(b) to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) for expenses incurred by the complainant for staying from abroad from 17.09.2012 to 14.02.2013.
(c) to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) for harassment and mental agony.
(d) to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) for litigation expenses.
(e) not to repeat this mistake in future.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
August 03, 2015.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
