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

========

Complt.Case No:  1318 of 2009

Date of Institution:   16.09.2009

Date of Decision  :   23.09.2010

Vinay Mahajan son of Sh.Sukhdev Mahajan, R/o H.No.1, Peer Baba Road, Baltana, Zirakpur.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          Foreign Horizons, (A Unit of T & A Overseas Consultants Pvt. Ltd.), SCO No.126-127, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

2]          Sh.Arvind Asth, Director, Foreign Horizons (A Unit of T & A Overseas Consultants Pvt. Ltd.), SCO No.126-127, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                           PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI              MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                          MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Munish Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.H.S.Saini, Adv. for the OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by Vinay Mahjan against Foreign Horizons (A Unit of T & A Overseas Consultants Pvt. Ltd.), SCO No.126-127, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                    The complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount paid by him for obtaining a working visa from U.K., as well as compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

1]                 The facts of the case are as under:-

                    The complainant wished to settle in U.K. (United Kingdom).  He visited the office of OP No.1 to seek guidance and help to obtain a working visa for U.K.  The OPs demanded a sum of Rs.1.25 lacs in two installments for the services to be provided by them.  Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the OPs as an initial amount and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of receipt of visa documents.

                    The complainant was assured that working visa would be provided to him for U.K. within 6 months.  An agreement laying out all terms of the Contract was also executed between the parties on 12.9.2008 (Ann.C-3).  All documents relating to the education qualification of the complainant as well as other necessary papers along with passport, as required by the OPs were handed over to them by the complainant.  On the assurance given by the OPs that the working visa would be available within 4 to 5 months, the complainant gave a prior notice of his resignation to his employer, and subsequently left his job. Thereafter the complainant visited the OPs many times for obtaining working visa but the OPs never initiated any steps to provide the working visa assured by them to the complainant.  It is pertinent to mention here that by this time the complainant was also jobless. 

                    The complainant then sent a legal notice to the OPs through his counsel requesting them to comply with the assurance given by them as per the agreement signed between the parties.  However, the OPs failed to provide the visa. 

                    The complainant has thus filed the present complaint seeking refund of the amount paid to the OPs as well as compensation for deficiency in service.  

2]                 After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs. 

                    OPs No.1 & 2 filed joint reply.  Both parties took the preliminary objection that the complainant has not mentioned the correct reason for not getting the visa.  The visa applied for was Working Holiday Making visa Category (WHMV).  The law regarding this category changed on 27.11.2008 and as per the new rules, which came into effect from 28.11.2008, the complainant was not entitled to get visa under WHMV category as the UK Embassy has closed this category of visa.  Also the wife of the complainant, who was to accompany him did not possess a passport till 27.11.2008, therefore, their visa application file could not be processed by the OPs as it was incomplete without both the passports.  The passport of the wife of complainant i.e. Mrs.Neha Mahajan was issued only on 2.12.2008. 

                    From the date of signing of the agreement between the complainant and the OPs, the complainant did not produce the passport of his wife, which was primarily necessary for completing all documents.  Therefore, the OPs cannot now in any way be held liable for compensating the complainant for non-grant of visa.

                    On merits, the OPs have submitted that the complainant at the time of agreement was informed about the dead line date i.e. 27.11.2008 for WHMV and the policy envisaged from the website of the U.K.Embassy.  Also they had never asked the complainant to quit his job, neither was it a requirement to apply for visa under the WHMV category.  On the contrary, a person who is in job while applying for visa has a better chance to get a visa under the said category. Under these circumstances, the OPs cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act as the rules & regulations governing the process of granting or allowing a visa is never in the hands of OP.  Opening or closing a category for Visa is the sole prerogative  of the U.K.Embassy and the OPs cannot be held guilty for not processing the case of the complainant well in time.  It was the complainant’s deficiency that the passport of his wife was not supplied to the OPs.  They have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                    In the additional affidavit provided by the complainant,  it is submitted that the complainant never applied for Visa under WHMV category as alleged by the OPs in their reply.  This fact is also not mentioned in the agreement executed between the parties.  It is very clear from the agreement that the complainant had applied for a working visa for himself alone.  The OPs were not able to provide the working visa or even process the file of the complainant and thereafter when they failed to do the needful despite repeated requests, they started making a demand for the passport of the wife of the complainant by stating the same was required for obtaining the working visa.  When this demand was made by the OPs, the complainant applied for passport of his wife and when the passport was received from the concerned authorities, it was duly handed over to the OPs to do the needful along with all other documents demanded.  Even when the OPs accepted the passport of his wife, they assured the complainant that they were in the process of obtaining working visa for him.  The story put forth by the OPs in their reply therefore has been fabricated only to escape their liability. 

3]                 We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence, and all documents placed on record  as well as the written arguments of complainant.

4]             The complainant is aggrieved because the OPs have not acted in accordance with their part of the agreement.  He has not been provided the working visa for U.K.  He has also became jobless since he had resigned from his job in anticipation of obtaining a working visa for U.K.

5]             The OPs have made a contention that they have complied with all the necessary formalities, but could not submit the application of the complainant before the U.K. Visa Authorities till his wife’s passport was not attached.  They had time and again reminded the complainant about the date of deadline.  When the passport of the wife of the complainant was deposited with them after the date of deadline, the OPs could do nothing to help the complainant in  obtaining the visa under WHMV category.

6]             The ld.Counsel for the complainant was emphatic that the complainant had never asked for Visa under this category.  He had only wanted a working visa.  The question of visa for the wife of complainant was never the part of transaction between the parties.  Just because there were lapses and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, they have taken up the plea of non-receipt of the passport of the complainant’s wife for not forwarding his request/case to the Visa Authorities of U.K.

7]             We are also of the opinion that the complainant is justified in his grievance because there is no correspondence between the parties, or reference in the agreement to show that the passport of the complainant’s wife was a pre-requisite for obtaining the working visa for the complainant from U.K.Embassy.  One would normally presume that the wife would go along with the husband and an application for both would normally be made, but this fact is not apparent in any of the documents or correspondence between any of the parties and has only been taken as a plea by the OPs when the instant complaint has been filed.  So this allegation by the OPs is obviously an afterthought.

8]             In view of the above, we deem it fit to allow this complaint.  The complainant needs to be compensated for the loss suffered by him due to the deficient act of OPs.  However, the contention of the complainant about job loss due to the act of OP is to farfetched.  The complainant should not have left his job before obtaining the visa.  This complaint is therefore allowed and the OPs are directed as under:-

i)      OPs shall refund Rs.25,000/- to the complainant which was initially deposited with them.  

i)         OP shall pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

ii)        OP shall also pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

        The aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay the amount of Rs.35,000/- along with interest @12% per annum, from the date of the order till its actual payment to the complainant, besides the cost of litigation.

9]             Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.                        

Announced

23^rd Sept., 2010                                                             Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

“om”