Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/165/2018

Tarantej Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easy Visa Education Consultants Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

H.P.S. Kochhar

24 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/165/2018
Date  of  Institution	:	13/04/2018
Date   of   Decision	:	24/02/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tarantej Singh S/o Lt.S.Mana Singh, R/o H.No.1143/1, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

Easy Visa Education Consultations Pvt. Limited, Registered Head Office: SCO 107-108-109, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Director/ Manager.

…… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, Vice Counsel for Sh. Anuj Alhuwalia, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

In brief, the Complainant availed the services of the Opposite Party to go to United States of America on Tourist Visa and in furtherance thereof paid Rs.11,000/- on 22.04.2017 and Rs.10,000/- on 12.05.2017 totalling Rs.21000/- vide Receipt Annexure C-1. After completion of all the formalities, the Complainant went to the U.S. Embassy at Delhi on 21.05.2017 for interview. However, vide letter Annexure C-4, the U.S. Embassy refused visa to the Complainant. The Complainant claims that the Opposite Party failed to inform him that it was necessary for the Complainant to have information and qualification as detailed in Annexure C-4. Thus, the Complainant asked the Opposite Party to refund Rs.21,000/-, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant was at the very beginning apprised that grant or refusal of Visa is the sole discretion of the embassy and the Opposite Party does not have any role in the same. The Complainant after understanding the same has even given an undertaking with regard to the same (Annexure R-2). Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Party and have also perused the record.

 

6.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that inspite of paying Rs.21,000/- to the Opposite Party for providing consultancy services towards issue of U.S. visa, he was denied the same by the U.S. Embassy.

 

7.      From perusal of Ex. R-2 which is an undertaking with regard to provisioning of consultancy services, we find that the Complainant himself has signed with wide open eyes that the Opposite Party does not give any assurance towards the grant of visa by the U.S. Embassy, as all the rights for grant of visa are with the U.S. Embassy.

 

8.      Further on perusal of Ex.R-3, it is observed that out of the consultancy fees of Rs.21,000/- paid by the Complainant, the Opposite Party has paid application processing fee of USD 160 to the U.S. Embassy.  

 

9.      There is no dispute about the fact that the Opposite Party has also processed the visa application of the Complainant and arranged for the interview of the Complainant at the U.S. Embassy. To our mind, grant or refusal of Visa is the sole discretion of the Embassy and the Opposite Party has no role to play therein.     The namby pamby pleas set up by the Complainant are vague, evasive and leads this Forum nowhere.

 

10.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party or that the Opposite Party adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

11.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

24^th February, 2020                                 

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/- 

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/- 

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”