DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 219 of 5.6.2017

                                      Decided on:   16.11.2018

Arshdeep Singh son of S.Daljeet Singh resident of H.no.100, Anand Nagar-A, Patiala.( M.No.86993-34457).

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Savita Educational Group, SCO No.80-82, 4^th Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh-160022 through its Proprietor/Partner Mamta Kheda.

2.       Mamda Kheda, Prop./Partner Savita Educational Group, SCO No.80-82, 4^th Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh-160022.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member         

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Ajit Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1&2.     

 ORDER

                                    M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT       

1. This is the complaint filed by Arshdeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Savita Educational Group & Anr.(hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that on 24.1.2017 he called upon OP No.2 after seeing their advertisement on Face book regarding study visa at Fiji. He consulted about the visa program as he was interested in getting admission in Fiji in hospitality course. On telephonic conversation, the OP asked for deposit of Rs.14000/- in her account. On 27.1.2017 the complainant approached the OPs. The OPs handed over offer letter vide student reference No.NQC in HO 321 to the complainant to take admission for National Qualification Certificate-111 in hospitality operation-March, 2017. As per offer letter, the breakdown  of the fee was shown in the offer letter. It was told and mentioned that duration of the course is 12 months covering 1200 nominal hours. The OP also assured that after completing two years of stay in FIJI, she will arrange PR and if the complainant does not want to stay in Fiji then she will arrange for Australia or Newzealand. Upon this assurance, the complainant handed over documents to the OPs for preparation of file. OP also assured that she will make arrangement for the complainant to do part time job to earn pocket money and arrangement for free accommodation in the college.
3. It is alleged that after few days, OPs called upon the complainant and asked him to give her Rs.55000/-. Initially the complainant requested that he will deposit the amount in bank account but the OP requested to handover the cash. As such one of her representative namely Rakesh Kumar approached the complainant at Patiala and the amount of Rs.55000/- in cash was handed over to him but no receipt of this amount was issued.
4. It is alleged that as per the projections made by the OP complainant deposited 330 $(USD) i.e. Rs.22490/- on 31.1.2017 and 4450$(USD) i.e. Rs.2,98,750/- on 7.3.2017. OP solicited the admission program in “Service Pro International Tourism and Hospitality Institute” 375 WAIMANU RB SUVA at Fiji. As fees through M/s Paul Merchants. On 27.3.2017 OP called upon the complainant and asked him to handover Rs.15000/- in cash on account of booking of air ticket for Fiji and asked him to handover Rs.75000/- with Mahan  Travels, 202 Favorite Residence, Saint Xavier, Loyola School, Mem Nagar, Ahmdabad-3852. The same was deposited through cheque No.391114. Complainant was to fly on 31.3.2017 from Chandigarh to Mumbai and then to Fiji through Fiji airways.
5.  It is alleged that within few days in Fiji, the complainant after enquiry came to know that the actual tuition fees for the course is FJD $2000 @ Rs.30/- and registration fee of FJD $250 @ Rs.30/- i.e. Rs.60,000/-. Moreover, the complainant was surprised that the course in which he has taken admission is only for six months. Whereas the OPs have assured the complainant and even mentioned in the offer letter that the course is for one year and during stay complainant is at liberty to continue his studies and can work so that he can earn his pocket money and meet other general expenses. But the complainant was not permitted to do any job. Complainant came to know that the OPs used to get hefty commission from these institutes and make false and frivolous promises to allure the students who are willing to take admission outside country.

Complainant immediately called upon his father in India to avoid further expenses. He made his mind to come back to India and left his studies. Upon reaching India, complainant immediately tried to contact the OPs but the OPs flatly refused to help or redress his genuine request. It is also alleged that it is apparent from the air ticket and passport of the complainant that the complainant took visa for one year and got his ticket booked for complete one year i.e. from 31.3.2017 to 7.2.2018. The air ticket was solicited/arranged by the OPs. This fact was very much in the knowledge of the OPs that the course is for six months but the OPs did not disclose this fact at that time which also proves unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

It is also pleaded that due to these deficiencies in service and unfair trade practice, complainant has to suffer lot of mental harassment, agony and pain and has lost his precious year. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.4,66,240/- paid to the OP, Rs.one lac compensation for mental harassment etc. , Rs.33000/- for litigation expenses.

6. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply the OPs raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint and concealment of true facts, that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
7. On merits also, the OPs firstly raised issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum by pleading that the services were availed by the complainant from the office of the OPs at Chandigarh. It is admitted that the complainant approached OPs at Chandigarh. The offer letter is admitted. With regard to duration of course, it is admitted that duration of the course was 12 months. As per OPs the declaration dated 11.2.2017 was given by the complainant. His file alongwith files of other students were submitted on 22.2.2017. Visa approval was obtained on 3.3.2017 alongwith other students. The complainant also submitted affidavit / declaration dated 8.3.2017. The OP has also disclosed about the confirmation letter dated 21.3.2017 and letter of departure dated 28.3.2017. It is denied that the OP assured to arrange PR for Australia or Newzealand. It is denied that the OP assured for any job. It is further mentioned that in declaration given by the complainant and letter of departure duly issued by Fiji authority, it is clearly  stated that it is a purely study orientation program and does not guarantee any job. It has been duly signed and accepted by the complainant. It is further revealed that the OP is dealing with this trade. Complainant could not adjust and was not ready for hard work in studies like other students. The complaint is filed with malafide intention. It is denied that the OPs called the complainant for urgent need of money and requested for Rs.55000/-. It is also alleged that the fee was directly deposited by the complainant in the college. It is also denied that the OPs demanded Rs.15000/- in cash. Complainant booked air tickets of which the OP has no concern. The fee claimed by the college is stated to be correct.The complainant was very much in the knowledge that he cannot do any work as it is clearly a student visa. It is also asserted that the visa/tickets were granted for one year as the tenure of study visa was for one year and it was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. All the other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
9. The complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of passbook, Ex.C1, copy of letter, Ex.C2, copy of message report, Ex.C3, copy of account detail, Ex.C4, copy of statement of account, Ex.C5, copy of structure of course, Ex.C6, copy of pass book, Ex.C7, copy of travel summary, Ex.C8, copy of receipt, Ex.C9, copy of receipt, Ex.C10,  copy of self declaration, Ex.C11, copy of affidavit/declaration, Ex.C12, copy of letter dated 21.3.2017.
10. On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of  Mamda Kheda, Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of self declaration, Ex.OP2 copy of receipt, Ex.OP3 application for student permit,Ex.OP5 copy of letter dated 21.3.2017, Ex.OP6 copy of letter dated 27.3.2017, Ex.OP7 copy of letter dated 29.2.2016,Ex.OP8 copy of letter dated 30.6.2017, Ex.OP9 copy of letter dated 17.2.2017, Ex.OP10 copy of letter dated 27.1.2016, Ex.OP11 copy of letter dated 29.2.2016, Ex.OP12, copy of letter dated 9.1.2017, Ex.OP13 copy of letter dated 14.3.2017, Ex.OP14 copy of application, Ex.OP15 copy of letter dated 27.1.2017, Ex.OP16 CD, Ex.OP17 copy of letter dated 6.10.2017.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. Since the OPs have repeatedly raised the objections regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Application was also moved by the OPs for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, arguments on this point are being heard before further proceedings.
13. It is submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant is resident of Patiala. The advertisement was gone through by the complainant at Patiala. Payment of Rs.14000/- was made to the OPs from the account of the complainant at Patiala. Statement Ex.C1 proves that a sum of Rs.14000/-was paid to OP No.2 by way of NEFT from account of the complainant which  is at Patiala branch. Therefore, part of cause of action accrued to the complainant at Patiala. As such this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

To support this submission, the ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Haryana State Commission inthe case of Suresh Yadav Versus MVL Ltd. 2018(3)CLT 335.

14. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that the office of the OPs is at Chandigarh. All the transactions took place at Chandigarh. The complainant also submitted the documents at Chandigarh. Affidavit/declaration Ex.OP4 proves that the complainant submitted the affidavit/declaration at Chandigarh. The departure letter Ex.OP6 was also received and accepted by the complainant at Chandigarh. This fact is acknowledged by the complainant in his own hand. No part of the transaction took place at Patiala. Of course, the complainant has allegedly paid Rs.14000/- from his bank account but the bank has acted only as agent of the complainant to transfer money from his account to the account of the OPs. No cause of action arises only for payment of this amount through bank. The case law cited by the complainant is not applicable as in the cited case the payment was received at Gurgaon. Therefore, this case law is not applicable. To support this submission, the ld. counsel for the OPs has cited 2017(4)CLT 498 M/s Medanta The Medicity and others Versus V.S.Tyagi  and  III(2015)CPJ 96(NC) Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Versus P.N.Ganesh & Ors..
15. We have given careful consideration to the submissions.
16. In  complainant the complainant has mentioned that he is residing at Patiala and the amount of Rs.14000/- and other amounts were  got deposited from Patiala. Due to these facts, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction.
17. Admittedly the OPs are having office at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the place of residence of the complainant is not relevant for determining the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The place of residence of the OPs or place of having part of cause of action are relevant to determine territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, this Forum will not have any territorial jurisdiction only for the reason that the residence of the complainant is at Patiala.
18. The complainant has alleged that the amount of Rs.14000/-was paid to the OPs at Patiala. But there is nothing to prove that the OPs have received this payment at Patiala. Complainant himself has relied upon copy of statement, Ex.C1. Of course, as per this statement sum of Rs.14000/- was transferred to the OPs by way of NEFT but there is nothing to show that this amount was received by the OPs at Patiala. At the most, it can be inferred that the bank having account of the complainant, has acted as his agent only for the purpose of payment of Rs.14000/- to the OPs. This fact will not give any cause of action to the complainant at Patiala when all the transactions are at Chandigarh.
19. The OPs have placed on record declaration as Ex.OP4 executed by the complainant. In the opening of this document, the complainant has admitted that he had hired the services of Savita Educational Group, Chandigarh by visiting personally their office premises in Chandigarh with his own will and willingness for getting admission. This affidavit/declaration was also got attested at Chandigarh and the place of attestation is mentioned at Chandigarh. Similarly the OPs have also placed on record copy of letter of departure Ex.OP6. This document is also received by the complainant under his own writing at Chandigarh on 29.3.2017.
20. The net conclusion is that no part of transaction took place at Patiala to attract territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. As such no findings on other controversy are required by this Forum.
21. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant(s), alongwith an endorsement containing the date of presentation and return of the complaint, the name of the complainant(s) presenting the complaint and a brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint. Copies of the documents be retained for record.
22.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter other papers of this file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 16.11.2018.

 Kanwaljeet Singh                   Neelam Gupta             M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President