By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The complainant is a student, who approached the opposite party as he was looking for MBA course from abroad and the opposite party assisted the complainant to choose London School of commerce, Malta. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 25/07/2017 and also submitted all his school and college certificates and also paid another sum of Rs.45,00/- to the opposite party on 07/08/2017. On 23/10/2017 the complainant went to Malta visa application center, Bangalore as per the instruction from the opposite party for visa submission. The complainant submitted his father’s bank transaction statement to show good balance figure in the bank account. Thereafter at the instruction of the opposite party the complainant did a swift transfer to glob education (GB) T/A London school of commerce, floor 3, Europa Center, St Anne Street, Floriana, FRN9020, Malta of an amount of Rs.5,45,375/- (equivalent to 6950/- Euros) to the A/c No.GB06MIDL 40062142593203 on 25/09/2017 as the fee for MBA program in London School of commerce, Malta from UAE exchange & financial services limited, Edappal Br, Malappuram Dist. The complainant thereafter went to embassy of Malta at New Delhi and attended an interview on 14/11/2017. Though the complainant submitted all the documents as per instruction of opposite party, the complainant received a visa refusal letter from Malta embassy on 22/11/2017 without specifying any solid reason for the visa rejection. The opposite party neither given any proper information regarding denial of visa nor give a clear justification about this issue to the complainant as a result the complainant could not do MBA course in Malta and he lost one academic year. Thereafter the opposite party instructed the complainant to send a request letter for the refund of the fee from London School of commerce and accordingly complainant sent a request on 18/01/2018. The complainant was assured that the amount will be refunded within a week of his request.
On 25/05/2018 the complainant received reply from Mr. Sebin Joseph, stating that the opposite party’s accounts manager is pushing the college to refund the amount as early as possible and he also said that will do by the same week itself. But the promise was not correct. Then the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party on 02/07/2018 in the name of his father Husain Hassainar for having a justification regarding the refund of the amount that the complainant paid to London school of commerce Malta. Complainant did not receive any response from the opposite party. Thereafter 11 months i.e., on 20/08/2018 the complainant received an amount of Rs.5,21,602/-(equivalent to 6143/-Euro) to his father’s account. According to complainant there is a shortage of 807 Euros. Then the complainant caused another letter to the opposite party for the clarification of the shortage of the amount that he got refunded. The complainant did not get any reply from the opposite party. On 01/10/2018 he received an email from Mr. Sebin Joseph that since visa was rejected the college has refunded 6694 Euros after the deduction of college administration fees of 250 Euros.
Hence, the complainant alleges serious deficiency of service on the side of opposite party and also alleged unfair trade practice and thereby resulted spoiling of the educational carrier of the complainant. The complainant alleges he could not presume his dream MBA because of the cheating activities from the side of opposite party. The complainant lost his academic opportunities and sustained financial loss and suffered irreparable injuries, loss and mental agony. The opposite parties liable to compensate the complainant for his travelling expenses and financial and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
2. The complainant caused registered lawyer notice to the opposite party on 30/10/2018. But the opposite party replied stating false and vexatious facts. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to direct opposite party to pay Rs.1,45,00/- to the complainant and also direct the opposite party to pay the interest at the rate of 6% of the amount Rs.5,21,602 on holding it for 11 months, direct the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs.64,575/- with interest that still pending in the hands of the opposite party. The complainant also prays compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of loss of academic year and anguish and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appeared and filed a detailed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. According to the opposite party the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on fact and there is defect of non-joining of necessary parties to whom the complainant had direct financial transactions.
4. The opposite party denied that the complainant as per the instructions of the opposite party did a swift a transfer to globe education, London school of commerce, Malta and amount of Rs.6,950 Euros on 25/09/2017, that refund request was made by the complainant as per the instruction of the opposite party and that amount will be refunded within a week etc.
5. The opposite party denied that the complaint he has received an amount of 6,143/- Euros. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had transferred 6,944/- Euros to the educational institution and he received back a refund of 6,694 Euros after deducting the college administration charges of 250 Euros as agreed. Hence there is no shortage in the refund amount as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party has not responded to the registered letter of the complainant. The opposite party submitted that they had responded and also intimated the remittance of full refund of 6,694 Euros to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party also denied the averment that he lost academic year, sustained irreparable injury, mental agony and financial loss. The opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party and so the opposite party is not liable for anything as alleged in the complaint. The claim of the complainant for Rs.10,00,000 /- is unsustainable and there is no cause of action against the opposite party.
6. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party seeking assistance to secure admission to master of business administration course at abroad and the opposite party extended assistance and there by secured admission in the London school of commerce, affiliated to Anglia Ruskin University, Malta subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the conditional offers dated 05/09/2017 and 27/09/2017. The duration of the course was 16 months commencing from 27/11/2017. The total tuition fee of the course was 6950 Euros and the complainant transferred 6944 Euros to the London school of commerce and the same received by the said agency on 29/09/2017. The London school of commerce had issued an invitation letter facilitating the complainant to approach the Maltese embassy in India for the issuance of visa to enter in to Malta for study purpose.
7.. The submission of the opposite party is that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as the opposite party has already secured an admission to the MBA course in London school of commerce, Malta for the complainant and thus the duty casts upon the opposite party has completed. The process of securing visa for the complainant to stay and residence etc at Malta vests only with complainant and the opposite party has no role in the visa application processes. The complainant herein directly approached Maltese embassy authority in India with an application for visa as he was miserably failed in convincing his intention of his stay in Malta the same was rejected by the embassy authorities. The submission is that the opposite party does not have any role in the process of getting a valid visa to enter and stay in Malta for study purpose. The visa was rejected vide letter dated 22/11/2017 by the Maltese embassy in India stating the reason “the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable “and there was direction to the complainant that in case he is aggrieved by the decision of the Maltese embassy authorities in India, to approach the emigration appeal board, Malta within 15 working days. But the complainant failed in approaching the appeal body and the embassy authorities finalized the order dated 22/11/2017. Therefore, the present attempt of complainant is only an abuse of process of law.
8. The complainant here in had preferred a student refund application dated 18/01/2018 by claiming a refund of 6700/- Euros instead of actual entitled claim of 6,694/- Euros after deducting college administration charges of 250 Euros. The opposite party also submitted that the educational agency M/s London School of commerce had actually received an amount of 6944 Euros instead of 6950 Euros due to the variation in exchange rate when the amount was transferred. The agency, after deducting the college administration charge of 250 Euros as agreed by the complainant from 6944 Euros which was received at their end and refunded the amount to the complainant vide “priority payment acknowledgment “dated 08/08/2018. Actually, after deduction of the administration charges of 250 Euros the correct entitled amount of 6694 Euro has been transferred to the fathers account of the complainant maintained at Federal Bank as account No.14120100073394. Since the complainant has received the full and final amount due to him after deducting the college administration charges, the present attempt of the complainant is illegal vexatious and intended only to harass and lower the reputation of the opposite party.
9. The submission of the opposite party is that the complainant has actually gained a financial benefit of more than 16,000/-. Since during the transaction the exchange rate was Rs.77.22 at the time of remittance of amount and it was 79.69 rupees when the amount was refunded to the complainant. In this transaction, the opposite party submitted that even though the opposite party has no duty to interfere with the money transaction between the complainant student and the educational institution, as a matter of curtsy the opposite party made their earnest efforts to get back the amount due to the complainant and he has received the same. The opposite party submitted that the timely intervention and follow up of the opposite party, actually resulted in getting back the amount due to the complainant and the opposite party sent a detailed reply to the notice explaining the true facts in the case. So, the submission of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable, purely illegal and liable to be dismissed.
10. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and also documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A10 and the documents on the side of opposite party as Ext. B1 to B7. Ext. A1 is cash receipt for Rs.10,000/- issued by opposite party dated 25/07/2017. Ext. A2 is copy of acknowledgement dated 07/08/2019 for receipt of document from the candidate. Ext. A3 is copy of cash memo for Rs.5,45,375/- dated 25/09/2017. Ext. A4 is copy of letter issued by father of complainant to the opposite party dated 02/07/2018. Ext. A5 is copy of letter issued by father of complainant to the opposite party dated 28/09/2018. Ext. A6 is copy of registered lawyer notice issued to the opposite party dated 30/10/2018. Ext. A7 and 8 are postal receipts. Ext. A9 is complaint settled reply from department of posts India to the father of complainant dated 01/10/2018. Ext. A10 is complaint settled reply from department of posts India to the father of complainant dated 25/10/2018. Ext. B1 is the copy of letter issued by LSC Malta to the complainant dated 29/09/2017. Ext. B2 is copy of payment receipt for 6944 Euro dated 28/09/2018. Ext. B3 is copy of letter of invitation for visa application dated 29/09/2017. Ext. B4 is copy of refusal of visa dated 22/11/2017. Ext. B5 is fees requisition form student refund of deposits. Ext. B6 is copy of acknowledgement priority payment. Ext. B7 reply notice dated 05/11/2018.
11. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The opposite party filed notes of argument also. The following points arise for consideration
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party
- Relief and cost
12. Points 1 &2
The complainant approached the opposite party in search of study at abroad for MBA course. After consultation with the opposite party the complainant decided to join for course at Malta. The course fee fixed was 6,950/- Euro and the same paid on 25/09/2017. But due to denial of visa he could not join the course. Then the complainant requested refund of the fee as well as expenses incurred by him. The opposite party refunded only 6,694/- Euros and that too after 11 months. The complainant alleges deficiency in service against opposite party and also prays for compensation and cost.
13. The complainant produced Ext. A1 and A2 for the payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,500/- respectively for the service from the side of opposite party. As per Ext. A2 the complainant had delivered his qualification certificate to the opposite party. Ext. A3 shows that an amount of 6950 Euros has been remitted to the London School of Commerce on behalf of the complainant. So, it is evident that the fee remitted by the complainant towards the London School of Commerce was 6950/- Euros. But thereafter due to denial of visa the father of the complainant caused noticed to the opposite party demanding refund of the amount paid by the complainant for the purpose of getting admission in London School of commerce. As per Ext. A5 the complainant submitted that his father received Rs.5,21,602 which is equivalent to 6143 Euros. Hence the demand is to refund the shortage of 807 Euros. Ext. A6 is the lawyer notice issued by the complainant demanding compensation of altogether 10,00,000/- rupees.
14. On the other hand, the opposite party produced documents Ext. B4 letter of refusal of visa. The perusal of Ex. B4 the reason shown for refusal is the information submitted regarding the justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable. Ext. B1 shows the conditional offer of the London School of commerce, Malta issued in favor of the complainant stating the fee payable by the student as 6950/- Euro. At the same time Ext. B2 shows the amount paid as 6944 Euros. Ext. B3 is letter of invitation for visa application issued by London school of commerce, Malta to the complainant. Now the question arises up to what extent of service is required to be provided by the opposite party to the complainant in the matter of admission at the London School of commerce, Malta. The complainant could not go abroad for the study due to denial of visa. The opposite party had organized conditional offer from the London School of commerce Malta and also issued letter of invitation for visa application. But the complainant could not satisfy the embassy of the Malta that the complainant is entitled for visa. It is not proper to arrive a conclusion that the opposite party is entrusted to avail visa also for the student who intended to study at abroad. In this complaint, though the opposite party made all the attempt to get admission for the complainant at the desired university but due to denial of visa his admission could not materialize. The complainant has not stated that the opposite party had agreed to avail visa for the complainant and also there was no an undertaking to provide the same as part of service of the opposite party. The opposite party is not at all a travel agency as to verify the chance of getting visa and scrutinizing the eligibility for obtaining visa. In short, it cannot be hold that the denial of visa by the Maltese embassy was due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party.
In this complaint, it can be seen that the complainant could not get admission in the foreign university and so he demanded refund of the entire amount paid as fee as well as expenses met by him. The opposite party produced Ext. B5 as fee requisition form. As per Ext. B5, his request was to refund 6700 Euros. But there is no explanation for the difference between the fee paid 6950 Euros and the fee claimed as refund 6700/- Euros. The opposite party submit that 250 Euro was the amount deducted as part of college’s administration fee. So, the complainant is entitled for the refund of amount as submitted in Ext. B5. But it can be seen that though the fee payable by the student was 6950 Euro, the London school of commerce Malta issued receipt Ext. B2, which shows the amount paid as 6944 Euro. Then after deducting the administration expense of 250 Euro the balance refundable amount is only 6694 Euros and that has been refunded to the complainant as per Ext. B6, which is dated 08/08/2018. That being the fact it cannot be treated as the opposite party has not refunded the course fee. At the same time Ext. B5 shows that the refund requisition form was submitted by the complainant on 10/01/2018. But the refund was affected only after 08/08/2018. So, there is a delay in refunding the course fee by the opposite party and there is no proper explanation for the same also. The complainant contacted the opposite party for the admission in a foreign university and the service was provided by the opposite party but when the complainant was not able to join the course, he was entitled for the course fee except the administration expenses. The opposite party had taken contention, there is defect of non-jointer necessary party i.e. The London School of commerce has to be a party, since the complainant remitted course fee before the London school of commerce. But the complainant remitted the amount as per the advice by the opposite party and so the opposite party is not without any responsibility in the matter of refunding the course fee. The opposite party is liable for the delay in refunding the huge amount of course fee within a reasonable time. The time consumed in this complaint cannot be treated as reasonable time but it is a belated timing. Hence, we find that there is deficiency of service in that aspect on the part of the opposite party which is also treated as infringement of right of consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- on account of delayed payment of course fee. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceedings.
15. In the light of above fact and circumstances we find that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party and we allow this complaint as follows: -
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/ to the complainant as compensation on account of delayed refunding of course fee and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said entire amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Dated this 30th day of August, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A10
Ext.A1: Cash receipt for Rs.10,000/- issued by opposite party dated 25/07/2017.
Ext.A2: Copy of acknowledgement dated 07/08/2019 for receipt of document from the candidate.
Ext A3: Copy of cash memo for Rs.5,45,375/- dated 25/09/2017.
Ext A4: Copy of letter issued by father of complainant to the opposite party dated
02/07/2018.
Ext A5: Copy of letter issued by father of complainant to the opposite party dated
28/09/2018.
Ext.A6: Copy of registered lawyer notice issued to the opposite party dated
30/10/2018.
Ext.A7: Postal receipts.
Ext.A8: Postal receipts.
Ext.A9: Complaint settled reply from department of posts India to the father of
complainant dated 01/10/2018.
Ext.A10: Complaint settled reply from department of posts India to the father of
complainant dated 25/10/2018.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B7
Ext.B1: Copy of letter issued by LSC Malta. to the complainant dated 29/09/2017.
Ext.B2: Copy of payment receipt for amount Euro 6944 dated 28/09/2018.
Ext.B3: Copy of letter of invitation for visa application dated 29/09/2017.
Ext.B4: Copy of refusal of visa dated 22/11/2017.
Ext.B5: Fees requisition form student refund of deposits.
Ext.B6: Copy of acknowledgement priority payment.
Ext.B7: Reply notice dated 05/11/2018.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
