The revision petitioner, Genesis Immigration Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh was OP No.1 before the District Forum in the consumer complaint filed by the Complainant Arun Williams. OP-2, Param Consultants, Jalandhar, Punjab had filed a separate appeal before the State Commission. Both these parties had challenged the order of District Forum-I, UT Chandigarh, wherein the District Forum had held the two OPs jointly and severely liable to pay to the complainant Rs.2,67,558/- with 6% interest from the date of deposit and also pay him a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment, financial loss and carrier loss. Both the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission. OP-1 has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission in the present proceedings, seeking to have the impugned order set aside. 2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he planned to study in Australia for which he required a visa for travel and admission into a suitable college in Australia. The complainant’s father met OP-2 in this behalf and also met OP-1 on his advice. An offer letter for admission to Hales College was obtained by the OPs. The Complainant deposited Rs.2,67,000/- in the account number mentioned by OP-2. OP-2 was also paid Rs.50,000/- for his services and had sought another Rs.50,000/- after the visa was obtained. 3. Eventually the Complainant could not leave for Australia as his visa application was not even submitted to the High Commission of Australia. Nor did he get the refund of the course fee and the service charge paid to the OP-2. Having failed to secure either access to the course in Hales College or refund of the monies paid, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint. 4. Before the District Forum the two OPs filed separate written responses. OP-1(present revision petitioner), claimed that there was no privity of contract between him and the Complainant. According to him, he had rendered gratuitous service in terms of free assistance rendered to the Complainant. This help was given at the instance of OP-2, who was approached by the complainant and his father. However, it was admitted in the written statement that OP-1 had, in its capacity as the authorized agent of the College, received the Mail of confirmation of enrolment of the Complainant to the course. OP-1 also admitted having rendered advise on a few occasions to the Complainant by way of guidance to him. On the question of non-refund of the College fees, it was stated in the written statement of OP-1 that as per the policy of the College, the refund of the fee is given only to those students, who are refused visa for travel to Australia. In the present case, refund was not possible as the Complainant had not applied for visa, due to want of arrangement of funds to the tune of Rs.24 lakhs. 5. Considering the above admissions in the written statements of OP-1 and OP-2 together with other records of the case, the District Forum came to a conclusion that both the OPs were liable jointly, to provide the requisite service to the Complainant. The District Forum also took note of the documentary evidence, which showed that the relevant records were received by OP-1 itself from the Complainant for which an acknowledgment was also issued to the Complainant. The District Forum, therefore rejected the argument of absence of privity of contract and absence of consideration raised on behalf of OP-1. 6. In the impugned order, The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT of Chandigarh, has considered the evidence in detail on this point and noted that, on the requirements of admission to Hales College, all the discussion had taken place with OP-1. He had received the necessary documents from the Complainant and later returned the documents when the complainant could not proceed to Australia for want of visa. The State Commission had also observed that the papers relating to visa were lying in the office of OP-1 and had not even been forwarded to the Australia High Commission. 7. Considering all the materials on record, the State Commission agreed with the District Forum that there was no merit in the contention of OP-1(the present revision petitioner) that the Complainant is not a consumer qua him because no consideration had been paid to him. The State Commission also agreed with the District Forum that it was a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and dismissed the appeals of OP-1 as well as OP-2. 8. The case of the revision petitioner/OP-1 is that the impugned order is against the facts and evidence on record. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the records of the case. Learned Counsel argued that OP-1 had got the complainant admission to a college in Australia. He could not join it because he did not have a visa. Allegedly, visa was the responsibility of OP-2 and not OP-1. This runs counter to the evidence on record and the stand taken by OP-1 before the District Forum. According to the affidavit evidence of the complainant, the visa papers were not even forwarded to the Australian embassy and were lying in the office of revision petitioner/OP-1 till they were returned to the complainant on 3.11.2009. This is admitted in the written response of OP-1, which accepts that on one or two occasions, the complainant had left certain papers and the same were taken back subsequently. 9. In his Written Statement, OP-1 has admitted that OP-2 is known to OP-1 and both are in the same business. Yet it is claimed that he was asked by OP-2 to guide him and he had rendered the necessary assistance to the complainant in the matter. OP-1 has called it “complimentary assistance”, without explaining why an agency in the business of immigration services, should be providing free assistance to a person who came through a business associate (OP-2). OP-1 also admits in the written statement that enrollment/admission of the complainant to the course was through him as the authorized agent of the college. We do not find any substance in the argument of OP-1 that their role was limited to offering complimentary assistance. Nor is it borne out from the records of this case. 10. In our view, the fora below have very correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The common order of State Commission, UT of Chandigarh in Appeal No. 52 of 2011 filed by the revision petitioner, Genesis Immigration Pvt. Ltd., does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, which could justify intervention by this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The revision petition is therefore dismissed with no orders as to costs. |
