M.SANGEETHA Vs. NISSION EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 Complaint praying for the relief of refund of the balance amount of Rs.2,13,300/- paid for medical course and for Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to deficiency of service Rs.750/- towards legal notice and for costs from the opposite party.

(2.) The details of complaint in brief as follows : The opposite party represented by its Managing Director running service for admission in to the medical courses in foreign countries and through them the complainant got an admission in to the first year M.B.B.S., course at Rostov University, South Zone of Russia for the year 2007-08 on the promises made by the opposite party regarding various facilities available for the course including English medium of medical course M.D., for six years separate hostel facilities and attractive food expenses, free study material personal escort for students from Chennai to Rostov, European standard hostel visa and air pack are including processing fees and other incidental expenses of Rs.80,000/- and no ragging at the college or hostel. Complainant paid in instalments amounting to Rs.3,00,050/- as Tuition fees and extra Rs.1,00,000/- for admission fees towards visa air fare even though it was included in the processing fee. On the appointed day complainant went to the Airport and no personal escort from Chennai to Rostov was provided and when enquired the opposite party gave only dodging reply and when she landed at the hostel which was not within the college premises as promised and the hostel was only with dungeon condition and no facility even security was not there and common sharing of boys and girls, no fan or air condition provided on in the sold place carpet was also not provided and the standard found the complainant was admitted in the Russian medium course in stead of English medium as promised and the University charged for the study materials and books even though the opposite party promised that they would be provided free of cost. The food expenses also costs Rs.USD 100 $ for a week instead of for a month even though it was promised and the distance between the hostel to the college costs around Rs.60/- per day by taking two buses to reach the college. The complainant immediately explained the situation to her parents and on their advise as there was no safety for her stay and unable to bear the tortures any more she gave letter for returning to India and returned home immediately. She has undergone untold miseries and sufferings in those 6 days at Russia affected physically and mentally and caused her financially as well as lost her precise year for studies. She could not seek admission in any colleges in India as the admissions were already closed for academic year, when she returned to India because of the miss deeds committed by the opposite party. Complainant gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police against the opposite party and they agreed to return only a sum of Rs.1,86,750/- leaving balance of Rs.2,13,300/-. Hence a legal notice was issued on 23.3.09. Demanding for refund of balance amount and Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation and they have not complied with the demand made, but giving an evasive reply. The complainant has come forward with this complaint seeking for the relief as stated above.3. For the opposite party on receipt of notice even though one Mr.Sam Arun Prasad appeared for filing vakalat and written version sufficient time was given and in spite of that the opposite party was failed to appear or to file to any vakalat or written version till 21.12.009 from 6.11.09 and on 28.4.11 opposite party was set exparte. 4. Complainant side filed proof affidavit and documents and on the side of the complainant documents filed are marked as Exhibit A1 to A14. Exhibit A1 is the Xerox copy of Informatory notes given by the opposite party. Exhibit A2 is the Xerox copy of Fees Receipts. Exhibit A3 is the Xerox copy of letter from opposite party dated 1.9.07. Exhibit A4 is the Xerox copy of application form dated 3.9.07 . Exhibit A5 is the Xerox copy of admission letter dated 5.9.07. Exhibit A6 is the Xerox copy of letter from opposite party dated 6.9.07. Exhibit A7 is the Xerox copy of agreement dated 17.9.07. Exhibit A8 is the Xerox copy of Passport dated 3.10.07. Exhibit A9 is the Xerox copy of letter from opposite party dated 12.10.07. Exhibit A10 is the Xerox copy of letter from opposite party dated 21.11.07. Exhibit A11 is the Xerox copy of letter from complainant?s father to opposite party dated 1.12.07. Exhibit A12 is the Xerox copy of letter to the University dated 1.12.07. Exhibit A13 is the Xerox copy of legal notice to the opposite party dated 23.2.07. Exhibit A14 is the Xerox copy of reply notice to the complainant?s counsel dated 4.3.07. 5. On the basis of complainant?s materials the following points are raised for decision:- 1) Whether there was any deficiency on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant ? 2) To What relief for the complainant ? 6. Points 1&2 : The written arguments of the complainant & documents are perused and the oral submissions are also heard and on the basis of arguments and upon perusal of documents Exhibit A1 to A14 the order is being passed on merits. 7. As per the contentions of the complaint and the materials by the complainant and in the proof affidavit filed it is found that it is an admitted fact that the complainant has joined her first year M.D course at Rostov University Medical College in the western part of Rusia for the year 2007-08 on the basis of the process of admission made by the opposite party who acted as consultant for the Rostov State Medical University and as per Exhibit A5 complainant was admitted in Rostov State Medical University in general medicine faculty English medium for the 6 years duration course from 2007-2013. It is also proved that she has joined the course on her own by reaching the country of Russia and alleged no assistance of escort was given to her from Chennai to Russia and the University Hostel was away from the college without having any facilities and also she was given admission in the medical course of Russian language medium which language she was not known instead of English medium as promised as per the letter Exhibit A3. It is also proved that she has stayed only for 6 days and as per the letter Exhibit A11 the complainant addressed for requesting to facilitate the process of return from Rostov Medical University to Chennai for which addressed to the opposite party and for the question of refund is that in the tuition fees for which it is stated that any refund in the tuition fees for which it is stated that any refund in the tuition fees paid to the University and the processing period of refunds is the sole decision of the Russian Medical University and the opposite party in no way liable towards the outcome of our decision to return back of the complainant to India. This was the statement agreed by the complainant in Exhibit A11. But on that basis it is proved the complainant returned to India on the basis of the letters given by opposite parties to the Rostov Medical University as per the document Exhibit A12. In those circumstances in the absence of opposite party before this proceedings in view of the documents filed and on the basis of the materials proved through the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, it is proved that the complainant was lured by the attractive promises regarding the admission of medical course at Russia the foreign country and when the real thing was happened to be contra to the promises made regarding the non availability of infrastructures relating to the status in the hostel transportation study medium, study materials living facilities in the hostel etc., are all never anticipated and whereby due to the poor conditions prevailed there she unable to withstand for the same, the complainant was forced to return to the mother country by staying only for a short period of 6 days alone proved that those things were happened only because of the deficiency of service by opposite party. Even though opposite party claimed that because of the lapse on the part of the complainant in reaching the study centre belatedly by complainant those facilities were not provided as per Exhibit A14. But they have not come forward to prove the same and in the reply Exhibit A14 stated that the University authorities willing to refund a sum of Rs.1,86,750/- which was admitted by the complainant as returned by the opposite party in the complaint itself. But the complainant claimed another sum of Rs.2,13,300/- as balance to be payable by the opposite party. It seems the complainant had included entire amount she has paid for the course to the opposite party which cannot be refunded in full admittedly the opposite party has processed her application for admission including airfare, travel visa etc., and a total fees for the University is said to be around Rs.1,80,000/- to be payable directly to the University as per the document Exhibit A1 and in the circumstances it could be justifiable to direct the opposite party to return the money for Rs.2,13,300/- less the actual expenses incurred as service charges by the opposite party apart from the refund of rs.1,86,750/- already she received back. Further as far as compensation is concerned the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- for which no details were furnished by the complainant except to state that there was mental agony for 6 days to the complainant who stayed their at Rostov Medical University at Russia for her medical course against the adverse atmosphere which was alleged to have been caused by the opposite party with false promises due to deficiency of service and while the University was not added as a party in the proceedings the opposite party alone cannot be held liable for entire responsibility, since the opposite party acted as a consultant for the institution and thereby the claim of the complainant for Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony is some what on the higher side and without any basis certainly and the act of opposite party proved deficiency of service regarding the false promises made to the complainant which forced her to join the course due to the attractive promises and the complainant should be compensated to some extent for which this Commission feels by awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite party would justify the same.8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part with the following directions , a) The opposite party shall refund the sum of Rs.2,13,300/- less the actual expenses incurred as service charges by the opposite party from that amount. b) To pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for complainant?s mental agony and deficiency of service of the opposite party. c) To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs.