VIKAS TANK vs INDO RUSSIAN ALUMNI

THIS original petition has been filed by the complainant, Vikas Tank alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Indo Russian Alumni Educational Association, through its General Secretary, Mrs. Marina Dhawan. Brief facts of the case are.The opposite party Society which was registered in 1993, in terms of one of its objectives entered into an agreement with Russian Education Institute to provide education to the Indian youth. The society works on no profit no loss basis. In accordance with these objectives, the opposite party society entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Rostov State Medical University which authorised the opposite party to advertise, to select and to recommend eligible students from India for admission to a 7 years Medical Course of the said university for the academic year 1995-96.

THE Rostov State Medical University is approved for study by the Medical Council of India. In pursuance of the said understanding, the opposite party issued prospectus to the candidates indicating the terms and conditions on the basis of which their candidature would be considered for recommendation for admission. The services to be offered by the opposite party, the society, are enumerated at SI. No. 8 of the prospectus. A fee of Rs. 20,000 is to be charged for availing of these services. In short the services to be provided are to get firm admission letter from the University, arrange for visas and foreign exchange and accompany the selected students upto Rostov and look after them in the first few days till the students settled down. The complainant Vikas Tank is one such candidate, who has been selected in May, 1995. As per the terms and conditions provided in the prospectus the opposite party made arrangements in respect of complainant''s admission to the said University by helping to obtain visa foreign exchange, etc. The complainant was admitted in the First Year Preparatory Course at the Rostov Medical University in the year 1995. He qualified in the preparatory Faculty Examination in June 1996 and visited India for his vacation in the same year. Subsequently in September, 1996 hejoined the first year course at Rostav Medical University. The grievance of the petitioner is that in July 1997 after the First Year Medical Examination, he wanted to come to India. However, he was not given return visa by the Russian authorities. Notwithstading this the petitioner came to India on 16th July, 1997. Then he made the inquiries from the opposite party, directly and through his father as to why he was not given a return visa to Russia. In spite of a large number of telephone calls to the opposite party there has been no proper response. There was no help in getting return visa to Russia. He was, however, referred to by the opposite party to contact one Chandra Kishore of Moscow by telephone. It is alleged that Chandra Kishore sent a letter to the petitioner purportedly to be from the Rostov University agreeing to give admission in the second year. On that basis a visa to Russia was obtained and the petitioner went back to Moscow on 17th September, 1997. The petitioner was picked up by Chandra Kishore from the airport. However, Chandra Kishore instead of getting the petitioner admitted in the Medical College for the second year swindled some money from the petitioner and also kept the petitioner in captivity for almost 45 days. In the background of the above facts, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 40,43,400 on various heads.

AS against this the version of the opposite party is that on or before 12th July, 1997, when one late Dr. Dhawan, who was looking after the working of the opposite party visited Rostav Medical University and made inquiries about the progress of the recommended students, he was informed by the University that the complainant has not been attending the classes regularly and that he has also created problems to the students. It appears that the complainant also failed in the final examination of the first year Medical Course conducted in 1997. Therefore, vide a fax dated 20th September, 1997 Rostov Medical University informed the opposite party to the following effect: "The student cannot be permitted to continue his study at our University and he has not been attending classes regulary and has failed in the examination conducted in the spring session. Hence, he has been sent back to India by giving him only one way Exist Visa. In future, please do not recommed such students for admission to our University, who only create problems for other students."

THE opposite party argued that the complainant had not informed the opposite party about these facts before leaving Rostov for India. It is only when the complainant''s father made enquiries with the opposite party that the latter came to know about his return to India. The opposite party avers that it is only responsible for selecting the students and getting them admitted in the Rostov Medical University. The students are entirely responsible themselves for their subsequent behaviour and for their studies. They further contended that if someone has been irresponsible, did not study well, created problems and failed in examination the responsibility has to be borne by the student and the opposite party has nothing to do with it. The opposite party also averred that the complainant paid Rs. 10,000 towards service charges and a balance of Rs. 10,000 is yet to be paid by the complainant. The opposite party has stated that the reference by the complainant to one Chandra Kishore at Moscow and the allegation that the above in collusion with the opposite party cheated the complainant of the money are totally baseless since the opposite party has nothing to do with the said Chandra Kishore.

WE have carefully gone through the record and the written statements and heard the arguments of both the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was admitted in September, 1995 in the First Year Preparatory Faculty. He also qualified in the Preparatory Faculty Examination held in June 1996 and came to India on a holiday on a return visa. It is also admitted that in September 1996, he joined the first year course in the medical faculty at Rostov Medical University. This shows that the opposite party has fulfilled its responsibilities towards the complainant.

THE problem seems to have surfaced in May 1997. As was subsequently revealed, the petitioner failed in some subject in the examination held at the end of the first year medical course (i.e. at the end of two years since one year was spent in the preparatory faculty learning Russian). The problem arose, according to the petitioner himself on 25.6.1997 when the petitioner told his father on phone that he is facing some problems in coming to India. For the first time, the father of the petitioner talked to Mr. Dhawan, who was the then General Secretary to the opposite party on 12th July, 1997 to find out as to why his son was not able to get a return visa. Mr. Dhawan, it is alleged, has promised to find out the reasons. But meanwhile the petitioner landed in India on 16th July, 1997. It is an admitted fact that petitioner has failed in one or two subjects in the examination at the end of the first year medical examination. It is also an admitted fact that re-examination was fixed on 25.8.1997. The petitioner''s grievance is that he was not given a return visa by the Russian authorities and the opposite party, Society did not help him on obtaining such a return visa to go back to Russia to take the re-examination. The case of the opposite party is that the petitioner has not taken his studies seriously that he has created problems for the other students that he failed in certain subjects at the end of the first year medical examination and that he left Russia to India without obtaining a return visa and thus failed to take the re-examination. There is a letter dated 8.1.1997 on record written by the opposite party to the petitioner in which the opposite party clearly says that he is not concentrating on studies seriously. Qn20.9.1997the University has clearly written to the opposite party that the petitioner did not take the re-examination and that he has created problems to other students and that the University was not interested in taking back such students.

INCIDENTALLY , it may be seen that the petitioner and his father on their own efforts obtained temporary visa for Russia on 5.9.1997 which was valid upto 35 days i.e., 10.10.1997. He reached Moscow on 17.9.1997. By this time the re-examinations were already over. It is only on 13.9.1997 that the petitioner''s father wrote a letter to the opposite party asking reasons as to why his son the petitioner was not given a return visa. A reply was given by the opposite party on 16.9.1997 and the petitioner has argued that this letter forms the basis for the cause of action. The petitioner has mentioned that on 28.8.1997 the opposite party gave the telephone number of one Mr. Chandra Kishore who is said to be the sub-agent of the opposite party in Moscow and the petitioner was asked to contact him for further help. The opposite party has denied that the said Chandra Kishore is their sub-agent in Moscow. They also denied that any telephone number of Mr. Chandra Kishore was given to the petitioner nor was he asked to contact Mr. Chandra Kishore. A number of allegation have been made by the petitioner about Chandra Kishore and how he extracted money and also kept the petitioner in captivity for around 45 days.

ON behalf of the petitioner, a copy of the complainant filed by one Mr, Rafi Ahmed before the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Gauhati was produced. It is alleged that Mr. Rafi Ahmed was also cheated by the opposite party who also advised Mr. Rafi Ahmed to approach the same Mr. Chandra Kishore. The opposite party''s case however is that Mr. Chandra Kishore is a sort of student leader in the said University and has nothing to do with the opposite party, Society. We are not going into these allegations relating to the role of Chandra Kishore because, as stated above, Mr. Chandra Kishore''s address and telephone number are alleged to have been given to the petitioner on 28.8.1997. Even if we assume this to be correct, it should be noted that by that date, the re-examination for students who could not clear all the subjects in the first year was already over on 25.8.1997. Further the petitioner has alleged that Mr. Chandra Kishore has sent them an admission letter dated 29.8.1997 from the University on the basis of which they could obtain the visa to Russia on 5.9.1997. This purported letter of 29.8.1997 would have been of crucial importance to the complainant. However no such letter from the University or from Mr. Chandra Kishore has been brought on record. This appears to be a concocted story.

FROM the above narration, it is very clear that the petitioner did not take his studies seriously, failed in his first year medical examination came back to India without obtaining a return visa to Russia and without informing the opposite party and did not take the re-examination by passing which he could have perhaps qualified to go into the second year medicine.

WE find in the present case, the petitioner himself has to be blamed for these acts of omission and commission. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant and no evidence has been brought to support his case. Hence, the case fails and the Original Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.