State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Saurabh Chhabra vs Rajeesh Arora & Ors. on 26 May, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 26.05.2016 First Appeal No. 549/2012 (Arising out of the order dated 30.03.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 392/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, 150-151, Community Centre, C-Block (Behind Janak Cinema) Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058) In the matter of: Sh. Saurabh Chhabra S/o of Sh. K.K.Chhabra R/o C-15-A, DDA Flats Shivaji Enclave, Raja Garden New Delhi-110027 .........Appellant Versus Rajesh Arora Arora Consultants FA 229B, Mansarover Garden New Delhi-110015 Madam Diana Kaldelis Education Consultant London School Of Business & Management Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place London WC1HONN ..........Respondents CORAM N P KAUSHIK - Member (Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes N P KAUSHIK - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT
Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum III Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Vide impugned orders, complaint filed by the complainant Sh. Saurabh Chhabra was dismissed.
Facts in brief are that the appellant/complainant Sh. Saurabh Chhabra was allegedly allured by the claim of the respondent-1/OP-1 that he was sending students for study in New Zealand, U.K., Ireland, Cyprus, Poland, Canada. Complainant approached him for sending him to U.K. for higher studies in management studies being run by the London School of Business Management. Complainant accordingly applied for student visa. It was got managed by the respondent-1/OP-1 through High Commission of U.K. in Delhi. Complainant was issued visa within a day or two without any enquiry from any quarter. He was informed that the course would start in November 2009. He accordingly reached London on 30.10.2009 and contacted the college. He found that the college existed only in one room which was called office. There was no college as such. The said office issued him an identity card for attending classes but there were no regular classes. The said office used to enrol the students for different courses only on the availability of the requisite number of students. College used to hire the premises where classes for various subjects/courses were held. Management of the college informed the complainant that the course in question would start in February 2010. For this purpose an e-mail would be sent to all the students. Finding it difficult to stay in England and afford a boarding and lodging, the complainant had no option but to come back to India. He asked the management the exact date of start of the management course which was never informed to him. Complainant prayed for refund of the amount, the details of which are as under:
3850 pounds (UK Currency) = Rs. 3,20,000/- Indian Currency. Rs. 13,500/- Visa fees.
Rs. 33,000/- for going to UK.
Rs. 28,000/- for returning from UK to India. 250 pounds (UK Currency) = Rs. 20,000/-. 800 pounds (UK Currency) = Rs. 64,000/-.
On getting disappointed and frustrated with non start of the classes, complainant came back to India on 17.11.2009. He sent requisite information to respondent-1 Sh. Rajesh Arora. He made a request for refund of the fees. He sent a letter of demand on 11.12.2009 which remained unreplied. Complainant demanded an amount of Rs. 5 lacs spent by him and another Rs. 5 lacs towards compensation. Interest @ 24% p.a. on the aforesaid amounts has also been claimed.
Defence raised by OP-1 is that the complainant and OP-2 were in direct communication with each other by way of e-mail. Complainant had agreed and signed the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Next contention of the OP-1 is that the aforesaid course was scheduled to start on 14.09.2009 but because of the issuance of Visa, the course of the complainant was held upto 05.10.2010. The course was rescheduled. Complainant was required to attend studies w.e.f. 02.11.2009. OP-1 also submitted that the attendance of the complainant in the class was poor and after receiving the intimation of the illness of his mother complainant left UK without intimating anything to OP-2.
In the present appeal, respondent stated that the complainant left UK and abandoned the course.
Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that the complainant came back to India due to the serious condition of his mother. For this proposition, reliance was placed upon the e-mail dated 11.11.2009 sent by the complainant. Ld. District Forum held that the complainant on his own came back to India and for that reason was not entitled to any refund of fee.
I have heard the arguments addressed by the counsels for the parties, at length.
Admittedly the study course for which the appellant/complainant Sh. Saurabh Chhabra had applied for was of 12 months' duration. It was to commence w.e.f. 14.09.2009 when an orientation week was scheduled. The course was to end on 06.09.2010. Information is contained in the letter dated 08.09.2009 issued by the respondent-2 (London School of Business and Management). Vide letter dated 06.10.2009 respondent-2 informed the students including the appellant Sh. Saurabh Chhabra that due to delay in the visa approval programme would begin on 02.11.2009 instead of 14.09.2009. Clearly, there is no lapse on the part of the appellant herein in the aforesaid delay in the start of the study course. After returning to India appellant vide his letter dated 10.12.2009 asked the respondent to refund his course fee. Appellant very clearly stated in the said letter that there was no fixed date in the start of the course. The next tentative date for the said programme was February 2010. In its reply dated 11.12.2009, respondent-2 did not refute the allegations. Respondent-2, on the other hand blamed the appellant that he left the course due to poor attendance in classes. Where was the occasion to calculate attendance of the appellant with very few working days? Both the respondents have failed to place on record a single document to show that the classes of the course ever started and the appellant attended the course on certain dates. Respondents were in possession of the best evidence to show that it was the appellant who left the classes in between. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the version of the appellant that the classes did not commence on 02.11.2009 as promised. Obviously, it was difficult for the appellant to continue staying in London till February 2010 and wait for his classes to begin.
Ld. District Forum fell in error when it relied upon the letter written by the appellant expressing his intention to go back to India due to illness of his mother. Appellant wrote the aforesaid letter fearing that he may have to face adverse consequences in leaving for India. Be that as it may, respondent No. 2 has not placed on record the attendance register showing the attendance of the appellant in the classes on certain dates. Plea of the respondents that the appellant left the classes in the midst of the course, is devoid of merits. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the orders of the Ld. District Forum dated 30.03.2012 are illegal and unjustified. The same are hence set aside.
Appellant has been able to prove that the respondents first caused inconvenience to him representing that the classes would start in September 2009. For no fault of the appellant, the programme was changed to start w.e.f. 02.11.2009. Study course, as discussed, never started. Another promise was made to the appellant that the course would begin in February 2010. It was not possible for the appellant to bear expenditure of stay in London till February 2010 and wait for the programme which had always remained uncertain. Complainant has been put to inconvenience, harassment, mental agony, sadness and frustration. Complaint filed by the appellant is thus allowed. Respondent-1 and Respondent-2 are directed to refund to the appellant the amount of Rs. 4,78,500/- (Rs. Four Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand and Five Hundred Only) alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. jointly and severally w.e.f. 11.12.2009 (i.e. the date on which his claim was repudiated) till the date of its realisation.
Respondents shall also pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant.
The aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the respondents to the appellant/complainant jointly and severally and within a period of sixty days from today failing which interest @ 18% shall be leviable on the amount accruing after the expiry of the period of sixty days. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.
(N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)