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

========

Jasbir Singh s/o Sh. Randhir Singh r/o 1037, Milap Nagar, Ambala City

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Foreign Horizons (A unit of T&A Overseas Consultants Pvt. Ltd.), SCO 128-129, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Director-Arvind Kumar now at present SCO 126-127, Basement, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Anil Kumar Gagat, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Hamandeep Singh Saini, Adv. for OP

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

              By this common order we propose to dispose of the following two connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and facts arise :-

1)            Consumer Complaint No.1281 of 2009-Jasbir Singh Vs. Foreign Horizons.

2)            Consumer Complaint No.1282 of 2009-Jasbir Singh Vs. Foreign Horizons.

2.             The facts may be taken from Consumer Complaint No.1281 of 2009-Jasbir Singh Vs. Foreign Horizons.

3.             Succinctly put, the complainant approached the OP for sending him abroad to U.K for which purpose he deposited Rs.25,000/- on 19.6.2006 and Rs.30,000/- on 19.7.2006 with the OP against proper receipt. The OP got certain forms filled and obtained his signatures on some blank papers also on the pretext of appointing him as Director for the HSMP and when they failed to do so he sought refund.  The OP refunded the amount of Rs.10,000/- through cheque which was duly encashed but did not refund the balance amount of Rs.45,000/- despite repeated visits.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

4.             In their written reply the OP admitted that they received Rs.25,000/- on 19.6.2006  from the complainant towards processing, documentation and consultation charges, out of which Rs.10,000/- has already been refunded, but it has been denied that they received any amount on 19.7.2006 and rather the fee of 315 Pounds amounting to Rs.27,944/- was directly paid by the complainant to the Home Office U.K on 19.7.2006. It has been pleaded that the case of the complainant was rejected by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate, United Kingdom on 6.11.2006 due to the fact that the experience certificate provided by him in support of his case for Visa to U.K under Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) were found to be fake for which the answering OP could not be held responsible.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

5.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.             We have heard the parties and have also perused the record including written arguments.

7.             The receipt dated 19.06.06 shows that the OP charged a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant for rendering service to him.  It is specifically mentioned therein that the “Fees once paid cannot be refunded”.  The complainant claims to have paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- also, which was deposited by him with the Home Office of U.K.   There is a receipt dated 19.07.06 showing that the complainant purchased a bank draft for £315 total worth Rs.27,944/-.   This amount was not paid to the OP and therefore the complainant would not be entitled to its refund as the same was paid as fees for the immigration Visa of U.K alongwith the application for Visa.

8.             The complainant would be entitled to the refund of the fees, if the OP did not render him service or there was any deficiency in service rendered by him. The only deficiency mentioned by the complainant in para 11 and 12 is that “the OP has failed to provide proper service to the complainant in sending him to U.K as promised by the OP and also failed to return the balance amount of Rs.45,000/-”.  It may be mentioned that the OP could not send the complainant to U.K but could only render him service for applying for a Visa.  It is not the case of the complainant, if the application for Visa was not properly filled up by the OP or if the application was rejected by the immigration office due to any fault on the part of the OP. The complainant has attached with his complaint a letter dated 6.11.06 in which it is mentioned by Home Office, Immigration and Nationality Directorate U.K, that “they have not been able to verify the documents from Infotech Computer Education provided in the case and therefore were not satisfied that Jasbir Singh(complainant) meets the requirement of the HSMP arrangements”.  It shows that the certificate of experience provided by the complainant from Infotech Computer Education was not genuine and when inquiries were made by the Home Office of U.K, the said certificate could not be verified.  If a false certificate of experience was produced by the complainant to the OP to show himself  eligible under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) arrangements, no fault can be found with the service of the OP, if the Home Office detected the said falsehood and rejected the Visa application of the complainant.  The Visa was therefore refused to the complainant not due to any deficiency in service on the part of the OP but due to the non-eligibility of the complainant for immigration.  If there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he would not be liable to refund the fees charged by him.  He has however refunded the amount of Rs.10,000/- out of his fee of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that “both the complainants alongwith other persons came to his office and raised hue and cry in front of the prospective clients of the OPs and other staff members present in the office and therefore keeping in mind the reputation of his office and business a sum of Rs.10,000/- was refunded to each of them”, as mentioned in para 9 of the reply.

9.             Since there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, they were not liable to refund any more amount to the complainant.  There is no merit in this complaint. The same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.