STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.    M/s Cosmos Careers Ltd., SCO No.10-11-12, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017, through its Managing Director.

2.    Managing Director/Incharge M/s Cosmos Careers Ltd.,     SCO No.10-11-12, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh – 160017.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Gurvinder Singh, son of late Sh. Kulvinder Singh, through Smt. Kuldeep Kaur (mother), resident of  H.No.146, Om Gali, Kilan Area, Nangal Township, District Ropar.

              ....Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Navjinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.06.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,35,775/-, to the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to refund the awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization, besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation”.   

2.              The facts, in brief, are that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties (now appellants), for study visa for United Kingdom (hereinafter to be referred as U.K. only), for which, he deposited a total sum of Rs.3,55,000/-, with them.  It was stated that when the complainant again contacted the Opposite Parties, they expressed their inability, to provide the student visa, and refunded the amount of Rs.1,19,225/-, vide cheque No.336839 dated 30.7.2010, after deducting Rs.10,000/-, as processing charges. They, however, did not refund the balance amount of Rs.2,35,775/-, despite issuance of legal notice dated 13.10.2011 (infact 11.10.2011, and delivered on 13.10.2011)). It was stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,35,775/-; pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, to the tune of Rs.1 lac; pay interest @12% P.A., w.e.f. 16.08.2010, on the amount of Rs.2,35,775/-, till realization; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, was filed.

3.             The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer. It was stated that the complainant, contacted the Opposite Parties, for study visa, for U.K. It was admitted that a sum of Rs.3,55,000/- was deposited,  with the Opposite Parties, by the complainant, for the said purpose. It was further stated that a Contract of Engagement, for providing the student visa to the complainant, was executed, between the parties, on 20.11.2009. The complainant selected London Victoria College, for admission, and applied through the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties, received the confirmation of eligibility dated 08.12.2009, from the said College. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, made the payment through demand draft bearing No.62254 dated 10.12.2009, of 3,500 Pounds (i.e. Rs.2,70,775/-) including taxes, to the college aforesaid. It was further stated that, in January, 2010, the United Kingdom Border Agency (hereinafter to be referred as UKBA) suspended all operations, across India, due to which, the College did not issue Visa Support Letter, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, time and again, requested the College Authorities, to either issue Visa Support Letter, or to refund the amount, paid to them, but they were lingering on the matter, on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that UKBA, had blacklisted the London Victoria College. It was further stated that the complainant, applied for closing of his case, and settlement of the account, vide application dated 30.07.2010, alongwith his affidavit. It was further stated that the complainant, also stated, in the affidavit, that he had no claim, whatsoever, on any account, and signed the same, in full and final settlement, towards visa application process. On receipt of that application, the Opposite Parties,  returned all the original documents, and refunded a sum of Rs.1,19,225/-, to the complainant. It was further stated that the remaining amount was paid by the Opposite Parties, to the College Authorities, and, if they had not refunded the same, they (Opposite Parties), were not liable to refund the same. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that since the entire payment of Rs.3,55,000/-, was made to the Opposite Parties, by the complainant, for study visa to U.K., and they failed to provide him  the same, they were deficient, in rendering service, by not refunding the entire amount. The District Forum, also came to the conclusion, that since the complainant was a minor, at the time of submitting the application, alongwith the affidavit, with regard to the full and final settlement of the visa processing application, after receipt of a sum of Rs.1,19,225/-, the same were not binding upon him, as he was not competent to execute the same.   

6.             Ultimately, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.             The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant approached them, for getting study visa for U.K., and deposited a total sum of Rs.3,55,000/-, (i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- vide receipt No.1677 dated 30.11.2009 and Rs.5,000/-, for visa clearance, vide receipt no.1644 dated 20.11.2009). He further submitted that a Contract of Engagement, Annexure R1 dated 20.11.2009, was executed between the parties. He further submitted that, as per the Contract of Engagement, the appellants were only liable to provide consultancy and processing of the application of the complainant, for getting study visa for U.K. He further submitted that the appellants, had told the complainant, that the process of admission in the College in U.K., was governed by the Agency, Known as UKBA. He further submitted that, thereafter, the two lists of Colleges were provided to the complainant, and he selected London Victoria College, for admission, and applied for the same, through the appellants. He further submitted that the confirmation of eligibility of the complainant was received on 08.12.2009, from the College, which included the total fee structure, and other instructions. He further submitted that after receiving the confirmation of the eligibility letter, the appellants informed about the same, to the complainant. It was, thereafter, that the appellants, made the payment through demand draft bearing No.62254 dated 10.12.2009, of 3,500 Pounds (i.e. Rs.2,70,775/-) including taxes, in favour  of London Victoria College, drawn on Thosmas (infact Thomas) Cook (India) Ltd., Sector 9, Chandigarh, ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ and,  sent the same to London Victoria College. He further submitted that, if, in January, 2010, UKBA suspended all operations, across India, due to which, the College did not issue Visa Support Letter, in favour of the complainant, it was not the fault of the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties, requested the College Authorities, to refund the amount, sent to them, by way of fees, and other charges, but they lingered on the matter, on one pretext or the other. He further submitted that the application, alongwith affidavit dated 30.07.2010, was submitted by the complainant, wherein, he stated that he would not claim anything,  from the Opposite Parties, and settled the matter in the sum of Rs.1,19,225/-, which amount was paid to him, and the original documents were returned. He further submitted that, therefore, the Opposite Parties were not deficient, in rendering service, in any way, but the District Forum was wrong, in holding to the contrary. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

10.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, for getting study visa for U.K. It is also not disputed that the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.3,55,000/-, with the Opposite Parties,  for the said purpose, which included the visa fees, as also fees of the College aforesaid. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that the Visa Support Letter, was not sent by the College Authorities, as a result whereof, the student visa could not be granted to the complainant. On the other hand, UKBA suspended all operations, across India. The College was also blacklisted by the U.K. Authorities. Since, the entire amount was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, and their services were hired by him, for consideration, if they failed to provide the requisite service to him, i.e. by getting him student visa for U.K., then, it was their responsibility, to refund the entire amount, to him. The complainant had no connection with London Victoria College Authorities. In these circumstances, when no service was rendered by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, they were not entitled to retain the amount, deposited with them, for the said service, by the complainant. The Opposite Parties, only refunded the amount of Rs.1,19,225/-, through cheque number 336839 dated 30.07.2010, but retained the remaining amount with them. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding, that the Opposite Parties were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice.

11.           No doubt, reliance was placed by the Counsel for the appellants, on Annexure R-6, copy of the application, said to have been submitted by the complainant, wherein, he asked the Opposite Parties, to pay the amount of Rs.1,16,500/ in full and final settlement of the claim, and, thereafter, the Opposite Parties, shall not be liable to pay any further amount to him. Alongwith this application, an affidavit, copy whereof is Annexure R-7 dated 30.07.2010, was also submitted by the complainant. Annexure R-8  dated 30.07.2010, is the copy of the letter, which was written to the complainant, by the Opposite Parties, vide which, the Passport and DMC of Matriculation was handed over to him. In this document, the date of birth of the complainant is mentioned as 07.07.1993.  It means, that when the application, copy whereof is Annexure R-6, was submitted by the complainant, and the affidavit dated 30.07.2010, copy whereof is Annexure R-7, was allegedly sworn by him, he was about 17 years of age, and, as such a minor. Since, at the time of moving the application, copy whereof is Annexure R-6, alongwith the affidavit Annexure R-7, allegedly sworn by the complainant, he was a minor, having not attained the age of majority, both these documents, were not binding upon him. The consent of the minor is not consent in the eyes of law. According to the provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, any contract entered into by a minor is void ab-initio. Thus, any statement of the complainant, in the application, or in the affidavit, referred to above, for receipt of amount of Rs.1,16,500/-, in full and final settlement of the claim was not binding upon him. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellants, from these documents.

12.           The District Forum, was right in coming to the conclusion, that a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, was caused to the complainant, as the entire amount, which was deposited by him, was not refunded to him, when the appellants failed to provide him the student visa for U.K. Had the full amount, deposited by the complainant, been refunded to him, immediately, after the Opposite Parties, failed to provide him the student visa for U.K., for whatever the reasons may be, he would have been saved of the harassment and the mental agony caused to him. The complainant, was, thus, unnecessarily dragged into litigation, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties. The District Forum, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that  for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, by the Opposite Parties, he was entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.30,000/-.  

13.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants.

14.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

September 3, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg