State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.Vidyasagar Reddy, vs Kjr Entrepreneurs India Pvt.Ltd., on 15 September, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana Complaint Case No. CC/136/2015 1. G.Vidyasagar Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy Aged about 32 years, Occupation Software Employee R/o.Plot No.313,Street No. 22, RTC Colony, HMT Swanapuri Colony, Miyapur, Hyderabad ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. KJR Entrepreneurs India Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director Santosha Goutam Kandiraju 104, Sri Sai Enclave, Near Aditya Towers, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad 500011 ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 15 Sep 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA ` AT HYDERABAD CC 136 of 2015 Between : G. Vidyasagar Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ : Software Employee, R/o Plot no. 313, Street No. 22, RTC Colony, HMT Swarnapuri Colony;, Miyapur, Hyderabad ... Complainant And KJR Entrepreneurs ( India) Pvt. Ltd 104, Sri Sai Enclave, Near Aditya Towers, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011 Represented by its Managing Director, Santosha Goutam Kandiraju .. opposite party Counsel for the Complainant : Mr. Ayub Mohiuddin Ansari Counsel for the opposite party : set exparte. Coram : Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri PatilVithal Rao .. Member
Friday, the Fifteenth Day of September Two Thousand Seventeen Oral order : ( Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.RaoNalla, Hon'ble President ) ***** This is a complaint filed Under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- paid for service/product charges along with 12% interest from the date of filing of the complaint, to pay Rs.20,00,000/- in lieu of amount deposited along with 12% interest from the date of filing this complaint, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with 12% interest from the date of filing this complaint towards the loss caused on failure of services.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is a graduate and the opposite party assured him that they would provide admission for Master Degree in USA without any GRE and TOEFL or any other qualifying examination and study hours will be 36 hours in a week, and besides it, they would provide paid job as well as work permit for the same 36 hours. Since the Managing Director of the opposite party was his friend, he paid Rs.40 lakhs, i.e. Rs. 20 lakhs towards service charges and Rs.20 lakhs as security deposit for one year, in the month of October, 2014, after collecting the same from various sources. The opposite party assured him that the task of visa, admission and job was already completed and it was needed final payments only and after paying the full amount, they will send complainants for Masters degree in USA with work permit within 15 days from final payment. He has paid the amount not only for him but also cause to pay his sister Vancha Sujana, W/o Kishan Reddy, R/o H.No. 5-38, Village Vedira, Mandal Ramadugu, District Karimnagar, Telangana for Rs.36,90,000/-. After final payment, both have approached to the office of the opposite party in the first week of November, 2014, but, he procrastinated from week to week assuring to send them for USA, and at last, in the 4th week of November, 2014, the opposite party told that the quota of 2014 was over and they could not fulfil their promise and would do the work in 2015 quota. When he started visiting their office , then, the complainant noticed that there were so many other people who were waiting for their refund of money for which the opposite party has failed to provide the services as promised. Hence disbelieving the opposite party, he asked to return the said amount. Then, the opposite party has executed Declaration-cum -Undertaking on 22.12.2014 declaring that he has received the product/service charges of Rs.20 lakhs and further Rs.20 lakhs as security deposit, totalling to Rs. 40 lakhs, from the complainant and promised that he would return the said amount within three months and in that connection, he issued four cheques @ Rs.10 lakhs each dated 27.12.2014 drawn on G. Vidaysagar Reddy issued by the Bank of India, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad. In the month of February, 2015, the opposite party assured him that the cheques will be enchased and on the request of the opposite party in dire need of money he paid Rs.17,000/- in good faith. When he presented the cheques in HDFC Bank in the month of March, 2015, all the cheques were dishonoured and returned on 17.3.2015 on the ground of insufficient funds along with memos.. He visited the office of the opposite party but the door was locked and hence he got issued legal notice on 22.06.2015 which was also returned unserved. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service.
On 07.09.2017 , this Commission passed the following proceedings :
" Counsel for complainant present. No representation for OP despite service of notice. Written arguments of complainant filed. In view of the docket orders dated 16.08.2017, the absence of the OP is recorded since02.12.2016 and his right to file written version was forfeited and his affidavit evidence was dispensed with. Today also there is no representation on his behalf. Hence OP is set exparte. Since the counsel for complainant has filed written arguments, as well as advanced his oral arguments, the CC is reserved for orders ".
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. A1 to A12.
Counsel for the complainant had advanced his arguments reiterating the contents of complaint, affidavit evidence in addition to the filing of written arguments. Heard the counsel for the complainant. Despite service of notice, as there was no representation for the opposite party, the same was set exparte.
The points that arise for consideration are Where there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and whether the complainant is entitle for the reliefs as prayed for ? If so,
(ii) to what relief ?
POINT NO. 1:
The contention of the complainant is that he paid an amount of Rs.40 lakhs to the opposite party to provide admission for Master's Degree in USA and security. Since the opposite party failed to keep their promise, the complainant asked to return the said amount, and in spite of that, the opposite party executed Declaration-cum-undertaking dt.22.12.2014 to return the same within three months and in that connection also issued four cheques on 27.12.2014 in favour of the complainant which were dishonoured on 17.03.2015 on the ground of insufficient funds. Door of the office of the opposite party was locked and the legal notice dated 22.06.2015 sent by him was also returned unserved. Despite service of notice, as there was no representation for the opposite party and hence it was set exparte by this Commission.
We have perused Ex. A-1, Original Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 22.12.2014, which, shows that the opposite party received an amount of Rs.40 lakhs from the complainant for processing of visa, admission fees, tuitin fees, Air tickets etc and security deposit for one year and the opposite party will return the same within three months. Ex.A-2 is the cheque bearing No. 000027 dated 27.12.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs, Ex.A-3 is the cheque bearing No. 000028 dated 27.12.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs, Ex.A-4 is the cheque bearing No. 000010 dated 27.12.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs and Ex.A-5 is the cheque bearing No. 000011 dated 27.12.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs drawn in favour of G. Vidyasagar Reddy by the opposite party and the drawee bank was Bank of India, Habsiguda Branch, Hyderabad- 500 076 and they were presented in HDFC Bank but they were dishonoured by the HDFC Bank. Hyderabad vide Memos dated 17.03.2015 Ex. A6, A7 , A8 and A9. Ex, A10 is the legal notice dated 22.06.2015 said to have been sent to the opposite party and Ex., A11 is the postal receipt for Rs.25.00. Ex. A12 is the returned cover which was addressed to the opposite party for the same postal address. The opposite party, though, received notice from this Commission, did not file written version and evidence affidavit and did not choose to contest the matter and it implies that he has no defense on his part and hence adverse inference can be drawn against it. The above facts and circumstances and the evidence produced by the complainant would show that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the opposite party to provide admission for Masters Degree in USA, but opposite party failed to provide the same despite many requests and at last made an assurance to return the same vide Ex.A-1, Declaration-cum-Undertaking and in that connection the opposite party had also issued above four cheques which were dishonoured and at last the opposite party did not come forward to defend his case before this Commission, which, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Though, the complainant has stated in his complaint that he has paid Rs.17,000/- to the opposite party, however, no receipt there-for is filed. Therefore, it needs no consideration.
After considering all the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant and opposite party, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to return the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 9% pa from the date of complaint, i.e., 24.07.2015 till the date of realization and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Hence point no.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
POINT NO. 2:
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to return the amount Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 9% pa from the date of complaint, i.e., 24.07.2015 till the date of realization and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER DATED : 15.09.2017. *kvr APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT : Ex. A-1 : Original Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 22.12.2014,
Ex.A-2 :original cheque bearing No. 000027 dated 27.12.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs, Ex.A-3 : original cheque bearing No. 000028 dated 27.12.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs, Ex.A-4 : Original cheque bearing No. 000010 dated 27.12.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs Ex.A-5 : Original cheque bearing No. 000011 dated 27.12.2014 for Rs.10 lakhs Ex.A-6 : Memo dated 17.03.2015 from the HDFC to the complainant dishonouring cheque Ex.A-7: Memo dated 17.03.2015 from the HDFC to the complainant dishonouring cheque Ex.A-8: Memo dated 17.03.2015 from the HDFC to the complainant dishonouring cheque Ex.A-9: Memo dated 17.03.2015 from the HDFC to the complainant dishonouring cheque Ex, A10 : legal notice dated 22.06.2015 from the complainant to the OP Ex., A11: postal receipt for Rs.25.00.
Ex. A12 : Returned cover which was addressed to the opposite party by the complainant PRESIDENT MEMBER DATED : 15.09.2017.. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER