Judgment:
Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.794 of 2006 on the file of District Forum-1 Visakhapatnam, opposite parties 1 to 4 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant and his daughter consulted opposite party no.4 and paid Rs.5000/- towards consultation fee for education in PG diploma in Computer Science at a recognised college at United Kingdom. Opposite party no.4 appraised the availability of the said course with opposite party no.5 and assured the complainant that opposite party no.2 would pick up his daughter at London Airport and complete all the formalities till she takes admission in the college. The complainant took a DD of 2000 Sterling Pounds on 24.12.2001 in favour of opposite party no.5 and a registration letter was given by opposite party no.4 on 22.11.2001. The complainants daughter left for London on 15.3.02. Nobody came for pick up in the airport and she stranded in the airport for 36 hours and with great difficulty she made her own arrangements and went to college on 20.3.02, she paid the balance fee of 1800 sterling pounds as demanded by opp.party no.5. The complainant submits that the candidate is a graduate in B.Sc. Computer Science and she was offered a computer course for business executives which is meant for candidates without computer science background. The candidate requested for a seat in M.Sc. computers which was denied. The complainant submits that his daughter lost one academic year and seeks refund of the amount paid and sent E.mail messages to opposite party no.5 and registered letter to op.2 but received no response. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to opp.parties to refund Rs.3,25,000/- together with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs interest and costs.
Opposite party no.4 filed counter which is adopted by opposite parties 1 to 3.
Opposite party no.5 remained exparte.
Opposite parties 1 to 4 contend that opposite party no.1 is not an agent of opposite party no.5 and that tuition fees was paid directly to opposite party no.5 and as per the brochure issued by opposite party no.5 tuition fee is strictly not refundable. The complainants daughter obtained visa from the British High Commission for PG. Diploma and Date Base Administration and therefore she cannot seek admission in a different course without obtaining permission from British High Commission. Opp.parties 1 to 4 are not connected with the subsequent option of M.SC Computers. Opposite party no.5 is the recognized university and there is no deficiency in service on behalf of 1 to 4.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A30 and B1 to B8 allowed the complaint in part directing the opp.parties 1 to 4 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship the complainant and his daughter were subjected to and to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order opposite parties 1 to 4 preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant and his daughter paid 2,000 sterling pounds in favour of opp.party no.5 who issued the registration letter. i.e. Ex.A13 dt.12.3.2002 stating that the complainants daughter is registered as full time student for PG diploma in Data Base Administration. Ex.A8 is the letter addressed by the complainant on 1.7.2003 stating that the syllabus and course was the repetition of what the candidate has already done and therefore they approached opp.parties in London for a change of course and sought admission into M.Sc. E.Commerce course which was refused. This clearly evidences that though the complainant opted for PG Diploma in Data Base Administration and the said course was available at the London College she herself wanted to change the course as she was unaware of the syllabus. She ought to have ascertained about the syllabus prior to opting of the course, she being a Computer Science Graduate. Therefore we see no ground for the complainant to blame the opp.parties on this aspect and there are no substantial grounds to offer refund. Ex.B4 also evidences that the course was very much present and as per rules unless the course is cancelled the college will not be able to refund the fees. Now we address ourselves to the main contention of the complainant that his daughter was not picked up from the London Airport. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they never promised to pick the candidate from the London airport and it is not the service undertaken by them at all. Ex.A27 refers to Kensington College of Business facilities in which under frequently asked questions it is stated that there is an airport pickup. Ex.A17 clearly evidences the role of opposite parties 1 to 4 that it helps students in filling applications and its counselors also and guide the students in the choice of programmes and colleges and also with respect to living expenses, accommodation etc. The opposite parties 1 to 4 who have organized the admission of the complainant in opp.party no.5 college for which the complainant also paid the consultation fee of Rs.5000/- are liable to pay for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and his daughter for being stranded in the airport for an inordinately long period of time. It is the duty of appellants 1 to 4 who have acted on behalf of opposite party no.5 in India to inform the complainant about the facilities that are to be provided to the candidates when she arrives in a foreign country which in the instant case opposite parties did not and this amounts to deficiency in service. However the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum is excessive and we reduce the same to Rs.10,000/-. We confirm costs of Rs.5000/- awarded by the District Forum.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/- while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks. No costs.