DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:420 of 2010]

                                                          Date of Institution : 09.07.2010

                                                           Date of Decision    : 03.06.2011

                                                 ----------------------------------------------

Sh. Narinder Singh, Aged 24 years son of Sh. Surjit Singh resident of Village Lalheri, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana, Punjab – 141 401.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

Foreign Horizons, SCO No.126-127 (Basement), Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. Rakesh Khatana, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. H. S. Saini, Advocate for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Narinder Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following directions to the OP: -

i)                   To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- charged as service charges;

ii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.17,425/- charged as VISA application processing fee;

iii)              To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of miscellaneous expenses such as C/A report, PF statement and valuation report etc;

iv)               To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

v)                 To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on being allured by an advertisement of OP for ‘Work Holiday Maker’, he availed the services of OP for getting UK VISA. A Retaining Agreement dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure ‘A’) was signed by the complainant and he also deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in advance being the signup amount for entering into the said agreement. The said amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the complainant vide two receipts dated 6.2.2008 and 8.2.2008 for Rs.5,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively (Annexure ‘B’). The complainant also paid the Visa Processing Fee of Rs.17,425/- vide acknowledgement receipt dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure ‘C’), which was sent to the UK Visa Application Centre, Chandigarh Application Centre by the OP. According to the complainant and to his utter surprise, he received a letter from the Entry Clearance Officer, UK Embassy, New Delhi vide which his VISA application was rejected on 8.8.2008 on the ground that the some of the requirements of Paragraph 95 of the Immigration Rules, which are as under: -

(a)     You have the means to pay for return and         onward journey.

(b)      You are able and intend to maintain and accommodate yourself without recourse to public funds, were not met.

The case of the complainant is that the neither the OP disclosed these conditions to him nor provided proper service and processed his case very negligently. According to the complainant, non rendering proper service amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                In the written statement filed by the OP, the factum of agreement dated 8.2.2008 between the parties has been admitted. The receipt of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant as VISA Processing Fee has also been admitted by the OP. It is pleaded that the complainant was instructed to maintain Rs.4 Lakhs in his account as liquid money for the purpose of showing that he had sufficient funds in his account. Any assurance as regards the grant of Visa by the U.K. Embassy has been specifically denied, which is their sole prerogative. It is asserted that the VISA was refused by the U.K. Embassy as per their own observations and findings, for which no fault can be attributed to the OP, who has taken utmost care in filing the Visa case of the complainant as per Rules and Regulations of the U.K. Embassy for WHM Visa. It is next asserted that the OP had used its professional competence and made its best efforts to prepare the application and had also assisted him in very reasonable and legal way to obtain Visa. Thus, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on his part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                The complainant filed replication denying the pleadings made in the written statement and the averments made in the complaint have been reiterated. The complainant has annexed copies of Visa Application Form and the appeal filed for reconsideration of his case before Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, Leicester as Annexures ‘F’ and ‘G’ respectively. It is admitted by the complainant that OP told him to maintain 6,000 Pounds (approximately Rs.4 Lakh) as liquid money in his account, upon which he submitted the statements of the funds of Rs.28.77 lakh as liquid money of his father and his uncle (mother’s real brother), which were several times more than what was told to him by the OP. As per the complainant, OP negligently filled the Visa Application Forum as they mentioned in Column 6.4.1 that the complainant is unemployed and dependent on his father, who is in government job. In the following column, OP also filled the job profile of the father of the complainant, which was not required at all. The complainant alleged deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP and prayed that his complaint be allowed.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.             Annexure ‘A’ is the copy of Retaining Agreement dated 8.2.2008. Clause 2 of this agreement contain the responsibility of the client, which reads as under: -

                             “RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLIENT:

a.          The client authorizes the firm to process its application for the “Visa”.

b.         The client has engaged the services of the firm in good faith and would abide by all the communications done by the firm on his/her behalf.

c.          The client would provide all the necessary and relevant documents within respective time frame to the firm for the necessary actions. The firm would ask the client not more than 2 times. If the documents are not received within 2 weeks then the case would be put under voluntary abandonment and the firm would not be liable to take any further step in processing the application. The rejection of the case due to delay or non submission of any documents would entirely be the responsibility of the client.

d.         The client would be responsible for providing only the authentic information. If the client provides any forged document or provides any false information or conceals any information, then the client is not only responsible for the rejection of the visa but would entitle the firm to file a case for defamation to the firm against the client.

e.        The client would pass on all communications received at his/her address to the firm for the necessary actions without any delay.”

7.                Annexure ‘D’ is the ‘Notice of Immigration Decision’, the relevant portion of which reads as under: -

“The Entry Clearance Officer’s reasons and supporting evidence.

The U.K. Border Agency and the British High Commission, New Delhi provides information to visa applicants about the types of documents they will be required to produce so that they can demonstrate to the visa officer that they meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules. We advise applicants that the failure to submit such documentation may result in refusal of the application. This decision has been made on the basis of the evidence you have supplied. The onus is on applicants to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the relevant rules. You have declared that the information you have provided is complete and true to the best of your knowledge. I have carefully considered your application.

I am satisfied that you meet the requirements of paragraph 95 of the Immigration Rules, except for the following:

Although I accept that your age makes you eligible to apply for a working holiday visa, you must also show me that you will leave the UK at the end of your working holiday and that you will not take up permanent work.

You state that you are unemployed and dependent on your father who has a government job (operator). Your presence here is clearly not essential given that you are able to travel to the UK for an up to 2 year working holiday.

Because of this, I am not satisfied that you are genuinely seeking entry to the UK as a working holidaymaker, that you plan to leave the UK at the end of your working holiday or that you plan to do only temporary work which is incidental to a holiday. (Paragraph 95 (vi) (viii) of HC 395).

You state that you have up to Rs.28.77 lakh (about £35,966) for your trip. You have not provided satisfactory evidence that such funds will actually be available to you or that it is credible for your family to deplete their savings to fund an extended holiday by you. You have not explained or shown that it is realistic for you to spend such funds on a working holiday. The costs involved in spending two years in the United Kingdom on a two year working holiday will be considerable. Taking into account your circumstances and experience in India, I am not satisfied that your earning potential in the UK would be sufficient to enable you to support yourself for two years if you were to take employment that was only incidental to a holiday and for not more than 12 months. You have not provided satisfactory evidence as to how you will be able to support yourself during this period. I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that you will be able to maintain and accommodate yourself in the UK without recourse to public funds or without taking employment other than that which is incidental to a holiday. (Paragraph 95 (v) (vi) of HC 395).

Although I accept that you may not have firm plans for the future, you must show that you plan to leave the UK at the end of your working holiday. Because you have not shown me any realistic future plans, I am not satisfied that you plan to leave the UK at the end of your stay. (Paragraph 95 (viii) of HC 395).

I, therefore, refuse your application.”

8.                From the bare perusal of this order, it is apparent that the concerned authority was not satisfied that the complainant is genuinely seeking entry to U.K. as a work holidaymaker and he plans to leave U.K at the end of the work holidaymaker. The said concerned authority came to the above said conclusion for the reasons that the complainant was unemployed and dependent upon his father. The concerned authority thought that the presence of the complainant in U.K. is not essential and it was suspected that the complainant would not return to India after two years of work holiday. The other ground mentioned by the concerned authority for coming to the above said conclusion is that the complainant has not explained that it is realistic for him to spend Rs.28.77 lakh, shown to be in the account of his father and uncle, on a working holiday. The OP had forwarded the entire intimation given by the complainant to the Embassy and it was for the Embassy to allow or decline Visa on the basis of the said information. As the information supplied by the complainant was not found satisfactory for the issuance of Visa in favour of the complainant, the same was declined.

9.                United Kingdom is a sovereign country and it has a right to decline the entry of any person in the country. The issuance of Visa is a sovereign act and OP has no control over it. Visa has not been declined because of insufficiency of documents. The visa has been declined mainly on the ground that the concerned authority was not satisfied that the complainant is not genuinely seeking entry to U.K. as a work holidaymaker and was doubtful about the return of the complainant to India.

10.              In these circumstances, to our mind, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

11.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced.

3^rd June 2011.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

C.C.No.420 of   2010

Argued By: None.

.

                                                          ---

                   The case was reserved on 31.05.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

03.06.2011               President                          Member