ORDER

PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.     This revision petition filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 549 of 2012 dated 26.05.2016 orders in consumer complaint no. 392 of 2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Janakpuri, New Delhi (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 30.03.2012.

2.     Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that respondent had approached the petitioner, who provides consultancy and assistance services for assistance in admission and visa services overseas, for higher education in the United Kingdom in 2009. The petitioner facilitated respondent’s admission in the London School of Business Management and his student visa application through the High Commission of UK in New Delhi. The respondent travelled to London, UK in October, 2009 and joined the said college. However, the respondent was not attending classes regularly which was reported by the college to the UK Border Agency. The respondent discontinued his education and returned to India in November 2009 on receiving news of his mother’s ill health. He filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the expenditure incurred on the admission along with compensation and interest from the petitioner. The District Forum in its order dated 30.03.2012 dismissed the appeal on contest holding as below:

… it is clear that complainant on his own came back to India as he could not pursue the course there and later on he filed this complaint to somehow get the refund of the fee. It is very much evident that due to illness of his mother he came back to India and as such complainant’s contention that no such college of OPs did not exist and the classes are not being held regularly is misfounded as the same is not substantiated in the Forum with any evidence and on the contrary sufficient material is on record to show that OP 2 is a well-recognized registered management school where regular classes are being held by the faculty members.

Accordingly, in view of the above facts of the case we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and, therefore, dismiss the present complaint being devoid of any merit. 

3.      Against this order the respondent approached the State Commission in appeal. After hearing both parties the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum as per the impugned order dated 26.05.2016 which reads as below:

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. Complainant filed by the appellant is this allowed. Respondent 1 and respondent 2 are directed to refund to the appellant the amount of Rs 4,7,8500/- along with 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 realization.

Respondents shall also pay compensation to the tune of Rs 1 Lac along with 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 60 days from today failing which interest @ 18% shall be leviable on the amount accruing after the expiry of the period of 60 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

4.    The petitioner is before this Commission agai