STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Meenakshi, resident of House No. 582, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.        Foreign Horizons Overseas Consultants Private Limited (Unit of T and A Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) SCO 126-127 (Basement) Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Director.

2.        Arvind (Authorized Signatory) Foreign Horizons Overseas Consultants Private Limited (Unit of T and A Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) SCO 126-127 (Basement) Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh

3.        Rupinder Kaur Sivia, Counselor, Foreign Horizons Overseas Consultants Private Limited (Unit of T and A Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) SCO 126-127 (Basement) Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh     

                                                        …. Respondents 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

Present:   Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 and 2.

                Respondent No.3 exparte.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation filed by the complainant (now appellant), against the order, dated 05.08.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 453 of 2010 vide which, it accepted the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents) as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month  from the date of receipt of the certified copy”.

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that the complainant submitted all the requisite documents,  to the Opposite Parties, for arranging work permit visa, to Australia, and paid Rs.85,000/- towards processing, documentation and consultation charges. It was stated that no agreement was executed between the parties at that time.  It was only on the insistence of the complainant that an agreement dated 09.02.2009 was executed.  It was further stated that some blank documents, cheques etc. were got signed from the complainant by the Opposite Parties.  It was further stated that, thereafter, the  Opposite Parties, unilaterally, converted her case, from Work Permit Visa, to Study Visa, and told her to deposit Rs.45,000/- in account no.29180001000227169, in favour of Sh.Naresh, who was their associate and would sponsor her for financial help. She was also told that he would submit the documents showing the requisite funds as per the requirement of the Australian Government and also to meet the course fee, living cost and cost of college in Australia.  It was further stated that, under compelled circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- on 05.05.2009, Rs.20,000/- on 7.05.2009 and Rs.15,700/- on 23.06.2009 with the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, to get the information, regarding her case but she received no response. Ultimately, she sought refund of the amount from the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.2 told her to submit an affidavit for Rs.85,000/-. She accordingly submitted an affidavit dated 07.01.2010 to OP-2 on 11.01.2010 under pressure, and coercion. The Opposite Parties, however, failed to refund the amount. It was further stated that  the Opposite Parties issued only two cheques for Rs.35,000/- dated 31.05.2010 and Rs.50,000/- dated 08.06.2010 but the same were returned unpaid. She was, however, paid Rs.85,000/- by the Opposite Parties after a lot of harassment. It was further stated that  the complainant came to know from the Police Authorities that her case was rejected, by the Australian Government, but no intimation was given to her by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant was entitled to the refund of Rs.60,700/- which were deposited with the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their written reply, Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 stated that  the visa file of the complainant was submitted as per the Rules and Regulations of the Australian High Commission/Embassy along with all the educational and financial documents provided by the complainant. It was further stated that the visa file of the complainant was rejected by the Australian Embassy,   vide letter dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure R-1) for the reasons, that the financial documents for her visa, on enquiry, were found to be fake and forged. The sale deed (Annexure R-2) given by the complainant in support of her financial status was also found to be a fake document. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.85000/- deposited by the complainant had already been refunded to her. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    Opposite Party No.3 adopted the reply filed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal for enhancement, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, made a statement, on 26.05.2011 before the District Forum that the OPs paid to the complainant a sum of Rs.85,000/-. This fact finds mention in the zimini order of the even date itself. Similarly, the Counsel for the complainant further made a statement that he did not press the claim for  Rs.15,700/-. This fact was recorded in the zimini order dated 27.07.2011. However, the Counsel for the complainant pressed the claim with regard to compensation and litigation costs.  In view of the aforesaid order sheets (zimini orders) of the District Forum, we are of the considered opinion that it (District Forum) after considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, was right in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/-. The compensation awarded by the District Forum is just, fair and reasonable.

10.                 The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

11.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

12.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-

23.01.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

Sd/-                              [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg