IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM.

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2021

Present:               Sri. Manulal V.S., President

                             Smt. Bindhu R. Member

                             Sri. K.M. Anto, Member       

CC No.86/15(filed on 31/3/15)

Complainant                             : Manu James,

                                                            S/o M.T. James,

                                                             Manjappallithara House,

                                                            Sachivothamapuram P.O

                                                             Kurichy, Kottayam.

                                                             (Adv. S.Aajeshkumar)

                                                          Vs.

Opposite parties                                 : 1) Vision Overseas Consultancy

                                                                 3^rd  floor Safa Trade Centre

                                                                 Opp.M.T.Seminary School

                                                                 Railway station Road, Kottayam-1

                                                                 (Now working at Opp.S.H Mount

                                                                    PO, Near Amma Gas Agencies, SH

                                                                    Mount PO, MC Road, Kottayam-

                                                                    686006 Repted by its

                                                                     Managing Director

                                                             2) Paul Jacob,

                                                                 Managing Director

                                                                   -do-

                                                              3) Joby Joseph

                                                                  Manager,

                                                                   -do-

                                                                   (Adv. Roy Jose)

                                                              4) Tintu,

                                                                  Staff,

                                                                   -do-

                                                ORDER

Sri. Manulal V.S., President

          This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Crux of the complaint is as follows.

The 1^st opposite party institution is run by the 2^nd opposite party is as Managing Director. 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties are the employees of the 1^st opposite party.  While the complainant was doing his Network Engineering course during December 2011 attracted by the advertisement given by the 1^st opposite party.  That the 1^st opposite party is rendering service to get admission on information technology course at Canada the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party parties on 1/1/2012.  The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties informed and assured the complainant that the 1^st opposite party institution is a registered institution having several branches all over Kerala.  They further made to believe the complainant that the 1^st opposite party is licensed to conduct education consultancy and they have sent several students abroad for higher education and all of them have got job after completing their education.  Persuaded by the assurance given by the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties the complainant entrusted the copies of the certificate along with Rs.5000/- as registration fees to the opposite parties.  There after opposite parties collected Rs.14,000/- towards college admission offer letter.  As per the direction of the 1^st opposite party the complainant appeared for the IELTS examination and medical examination at KIMS Hospital.  Thereafter the opposite parties collected Rs.3,91,800/- from the complainant by making him believe that he can go to Canada through Singapore.  It is further made to believe him that the complainant has to engage in a part time job along with studies at Singapore for three months and the opposite parties collected 15,000/- towards the flight charge to Singapore.  It is averred that the complainant had not obtained part time job at Singapore as assured by the opposite party, therefore the complainant had to spend Rs.15,000/- per month for his livelihood.  When the complainant tried to contact the 2^nd opposite party he evaded from attending the phone call on several times and lastly he demanded  Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant.  The complainant was compelled to spend 7 months at Singapore.  Thereafter as per the directions of the 2^nd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party collected 300 dollar from the complainant.                                          The complainant had paid Rs.8,00,000/- to the opposite party.  In addition that the opposite parties have collected Rs.50,000/- from the complainant by stating that the said amount was for dresses which are suitable for the climate of Canada.  It is further averred in the complaint that when the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party after reaching his native place the opposite parties 2 to 4 behaved in an irresponsible manner and demanded further 5,00,000/- from the complainant.  The complainant was not amenable to the illegal demand of the opposite parties as he was hailing from a poor family the complainant had availed a loan from District Co-operative Bank for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and paid the same to the opposite parties.  Believing the words of the opposite parties that they would arrange admission in higher education in information technology course at Canada.  It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite parties collected Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant with an intension to make unlawful gain and thereby causing illegal loss to the complainant.  Due to the illegal act of the opposite party the complainant had loss precious 2 years without attending any course and engaged in any jobs.  Hence this complaint.

Upon notice from this Commission the 3^rd opposite party appeared before this commission and filed version. Though the notice was served to the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties and hence opposite party 1, 2 and 4 set exparty.

Version of the 3^rd opposite party is as follows.

During January 2012 the complainant came to the 1^st opposite party’s institution and enquired about the Canadian Student visa and collected address of the Managing Director of the Logos Training Centre which is situated at Canada.  After having discussion that the Managing Director of the Logos Training Centre Canada, the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party to obtain a Notarized copy of certificate and sent the same to the Logos Training Centre at Canada.  As per the direction of the complainant the 4^th opposite party sent all documents to the Logos Training Centre after receiving Rs.2000/- from the complainant as courier charge and attestation fee.  The complainant never paid Rs. 5000/- as registration fees and Rs.14,000/- to the1st opposite party.  The complainant had pad Rs.11,700/- which is equalent to 200 Canadian dollar for the application fee through ING VISAG BANK Kottayam as directed by the Logos Training Centre, Canada.  The complainant had received an offer letter from Cambrain College through the Logos Training Centre Canada.  Meanwhile from January 2013 onwards there was a change in the Canadian student’s programme.  As per the changes the students must have six marks in IELTS and fixed deposit for 10000 Canadian dollar as advance in the name of the student at Canadian Scotiabank Canada.  The students have to pay half of the annual fees that is the 6000 Canadian dollar in advance to obtain Canadian visa all these changes in the law were informed to the complainant from the Logos Training Centre.  Then the complainant disclosed that he had only 5.5 marks in IELTS examination and he was not in a position to spend so much money and was dropping the project.

There after the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and enquired about the courses at Singapore.  Then the 1^st opposite party handed over the details of Food and Beveragour certified courses of 4 months class and OGT training for six months which was conducted by Singapore STEI institute.  As per the directions of the complainant the 1^st opposite party had sent application check list and application of STEI institute to the complainant.  The said application form was duly filled by the complainant and handed over to the 1^st opposite party and the same was sent to the STEI institute by the 1^st opposite party.  Thereafter on 20/2/13 the offer letter was received by the complainant and he applied for the Singapore student visa and the same was received on 15/4/13.  Thereafter on 26/4/13 the complainant sent 9000/- Singapore dollar which was equivalent to 7252 Canadian dollar to the Logos Training Centre through Thomas Cook, India  Limited.   The complainant received invoice for the same on 3/5/13.  On  27/4/13 the complainant received an air ticket worth Rs.14,653/- of Pan Air travels and the complainant went to Singapore on 7/5/13. The Logos Training Centre had arranged accommodation for the complainant at Singapore and he had joined the course during mid of May 2013.

The opposite party never made an assurance to the complainant that he could go to Canada via Singapore and the opposite party had not received                  Rs. 391800/- from the complainant for the same.  The opposite parties never made the complainant believe that he could avail part time job in Singapore and after the stay of 2 months in Singapore he could go to Canada.  The opposite parties availed the tickets for the complainant to Singapore.

On 23/8/13 the complainant applied for a leave of 20 days stating that he wanted to undergo a treatment in Kerala for his dental ailments.  On 2/9/13 the College authorities sent a reply mail stating the consequences of availing leave during the progress of course.  On 29/8/13 the 1^st opposite party requested the complainant that not to come to India without a study permit.  It is understood that the complainant came to India without completing the OGT training.  3^rd opposite party never received 300 dollar from the complainant.  The complainant did not complete his studies in Singapore only to his own act.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

Both the complainant and 3^rd opposite party did not adduce oral evidence.  Ext.A1 to A14 were marked from the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B14 were marked from the side of the 3^rd opposite party.

On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what are the reliefs?

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point No.1 and 2 together.

Point No.1

          The specific case of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party is the Education Consultancy which offered admission for higher education Information Technology course at Canada.  But believing the words of opposite parties the complainant paid Rs.5000/- as registration fee and handed over all attested copies of certificates to the opposite parties.  Ext.A9 is a receipt dated 16/4/12 for an amount of Rs.5,000/- issued by the 1^st opposite party.  On May 27/2/12 the complainant received an e-mail from the 1^st opposite party requesting to pay 200 Canadian dollar to the Logos Training Centre INC for application fee.  After that the complainant transferred the said amount to the Logos Training Centre INC, Mississauga Canada on 30/5/12. Thereafter the complainant received Ext.B2 official letter of admission from Cambrian College of Applied Arts & Technology, Ontario, Canada for the course of Hotel and Restaurant Management.  The course having 4 semesters and it is to be started on 3/5/13 and completed on 31/12/14.  On perusal of Ext.B2 we can see that the estimated tuition fee for first academic year was 11,424.25 dollar which includes mandatory health insurance.  According to the opposite party on January 2013 onwards there was a change in Canadian study programme.  Accordingly students must have 6 marks in IELTs and they shall make a fixed deposit for 10000 Canadian dollar as advance in the name of students with Scotia Bank Canada.  On perusal of Ext.B3 which is Scotia bank Student GIC Program we can see that accordingly citizenship and immigration Canada guideline under the student partners programme.  The student will require approximately 10,000 Canadian dollar per year, which is not including tuition fees but for living expenses for the students.  It is further stated in Ext.B3 that the requirement of the 10,000 Canadian dollar may be fulfilled through the purchase of guaranteed investment certificate which is equivalent to a fixed deposit.  Though the opposite parties contented that for the admission in Canada students must possess an IELTs certificate with 6 marks or 6.6 for the admission in Bachelor/Diploma certificate course in Canada.  However Ext.A12 proves that complainant has passed IELTs course from British Council with an overall band score with 6.0.  According to the opposite party as per Ext.B4 the students are applying for a study permit at Canada and for general visa the half of tuition fee must be paid in advance for obtaining the visa.  It is submitted by the opposite parties that knowing these facts the complainant dropped his programme for higher studies at Canada and opted studies in Singapore.  Thereafter on request of the complainant, the opposite party had obtained application and checklist for the courses of Food & Beveragour certified course from STE Institute Singapore.  After submitting the application for the  institute on 20/8/13 the complainant had received a letter of offer from STE  Institute Singapore for the admission in certified course for Food and Beverage Operations.  The duration of the course was 4 months STP and 6 months TWP when successful in industrial attachment placement, subject to ministry of manpower issuance of TWP.  On perusal of Ext.B7 we can see that the commencement of the said course was on 25/4/13 and course would be completed on 25/8/13 for CFBO and in the course of TWP holder. The course would be completed on 25/1/14.  Accepting this offer by the complainant 1^st opposite party sent email to the complainant on 25/4/13 requesting transfer of Rs.3,91,800/-in the account of Thomas Cook.  Subsequent of aforesaid Ext.A4 email he had paid Rs.3,93,990/- on 26/4/13 through Ext.A5 cheque.  Ext.A5 Cheque was drawn in the name of Thomas cook India ltd.  It is proved Ext.B8 that the complainant had obtained a student pass for joining the certificate course in Food and Beverageour Operations at Singapore.  The immigration and check point authority Singapore issued a student pass.  Ext.B8 student pass to the complainant for a period  which was commenced from 25/4/13 and valid upto 1/9/13.  Admittedly the complainant had joined the course and he studied for Food and Beveragour Course.                           The complainant had applied for leave for the reasons stating that he had some hypersensitivity problems on his teeth.  Ext.B10 email which was sent by the complainant to the STE Institute proves that he had applied leave for 20 days to go back to India to perform root canal treatment of his teeth.  On perusal of Ext.B10 we can see that it was stated by the complainant that the student pass would expire on 1/9/13.  The authorities of the institute has advised to the complainant vide Ext.B11 to carry out his treatment at Singapore.  The reasons stated in Ext.B11 that they have already applied for the TWP of the complainant with Aston Restaurant.  It is however stated in the Ext.B11 that the complainant is insisting on going back to India the TWP application would be cancelled.   Ext.A1 proves that the terms and conditions of the industrial attachment of the complainant with Han’s Café & Cake House Pvt. Ltd under collaboration with STEI institute.  On perusal of Ext.B10 and B11 we are of the opinion that the complainant have got an admission in STE Institute for the certified course in Food and beverage Operations and he had joined the said course.  Though the complainant contented that in addition to the payment made by him to the opposite party he had spent additional amount for his livelihood expenses at Singapore, he did not care to produce any evidence on this aspect.  Ext.A5 proves that the complainant had made payment to Thomas Cook Pvt.Ltd.  Ext.B1 proves that the complainant had transferred 2000 Canadian dollar which is equalvent  to Rs.10700/- to the Logs Training Centre INC.  The only amount which is received by the 1^st opposite party is Rs.5000/- as courier and consultancy charge vide Ext.A9.  Ext.A10 is the email sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant stating account number of Thomas Cook India Pvt.Ltd.  Though the Ext.A8 proves that Rs.7500/- is received from the mother of the complainant, however that is for tom’s CA report charge.  It is proved by the evidence on record that the 1^st opposite party had rendered service including the issuance of Air ticket to the complainant for consideration received by them from the complainant.  Moreover it is evident from the record before us that many of the transactions were made by the complainant directly to the Logos Training Centre and Thomas cook India Pvt ltd.  It is pertinent to note that the Logos Training Centre and Thomas Cook are not parties to this litigation.  Ext.B14 is the judgement of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Kottayam in CC No.28/2015. On perusal of Ext.B14 we can see that the case was charged by the police authorities under Section 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code against 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party herein.  On a mere reading of Ext.B14 Judgement we can see that facts in the said case is similar to the allegation in the case in hand.  The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Kottayam vide Ext.B14 judgement acquitted the 1^st accused who is the 3^rd opposite party herein.  According to the reasons that there is no evidence against the 1^st accused therein.  Moreover 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are employees of the 1^st opposite party.    On a thoughtful evaluation of evidence on record and circumstances involved in this case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties with cogent evidence. 

In the light of the above discussion we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

                Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12^th day of July, 2021.

Sri. Manulal V.S., President            Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R. Member                  Sd/-

                   Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1-Copy of letter from Hans Café and Cake house dtd 18/10/13

A2-Copy of letter admission acceptance dtd 5/11/13

A3-Copy of letter invoice dtd 7/11/13 of Logos Education Service

A4-Copy of e-mail dtd 25/4/13 of 1^st opposite party

A5-Copy of Demand Draft dtd 26/4/13 of Federal Bank for an amount of

      Rs.3,93,990/-

A6-Copy of e-mail dtd 27/5/12 of 1^st opposite party

A7-Copy of e-mail dtd 28/5/12 of 1^st opposite party

A8-Copy of receipt issued by 1^st opposite party dtd 11/11/13

A9-Copy of receipt dtd 16/4/12 issued by 1^st opposite party

A10-Copy of e-mail dtd 6/9/13 issued by 1^st opposite party

A11-Copy of letter dtd 30/10/13 issued by Han’s Café&Cake House

A12-IELTS Test Report Form

A13-Copy of agreement dtd  28/1/15

A14-Copy of statement given by 4^th OP

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

B1-Copy of bank transaction statement

B2-Copy of official letter of admission

B3-Copy of Scotiabank Student GIC progamme application glide

B4-Copy of Tuition fee schedule

B5-Copy of document showing minimum lets band requirement for Canada

     Study permit-2013

B6-Copy of fees schedule of the Singapore courses

B7-Copy of letter of offer for the course Food&Beverage Operations

B8-Copy of letter of Immigration & Checkpoint Authority

B9-Copy of Electronic Ticket passenger itinerary/receipt

B10-Copy of e-mail print out

B11-Copy of email print out

B12-Copy of e-mail print out

B13-Copy of deposition of witnesses

B14-Copy of the judgement dtd 11^th March 2020 by the Chief Judicial

       Magistrate Kottayam in CC No.28/2015

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                              Senior Superintendent