3.      In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the   complainant approached OPs for getting immigration Visa to Canada and paid Rs.200/- on 21.2.2000 vide Annexure C-1 and  a contract  annexure C-2 was signed between them on 24.2.2000  for the said purpose and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid in cash to OPs as retainer fee for immigration/visa fee vide Annexure C-3.  As advised by OPs, complainant applied under independent Category for immigration to Canada and deposited the requisite documents alongwith his bio-data. Thereafter, the complainant, as required by OPs, again paid them Rs.14,250/- through demand draft   in favour of Canadian High Commission on account of visa processing fee. On 31.1.2001 a letter Annexure C-6 was received by complainant through OPs from the Canadian High Commission requiring him to supply some more documents, which were duly supplied in time.   OP No.1 had assured him about his interview waiver but later on informed vide letter dated 2.1.2003 that his interview waiver has been quashed and the interview would be scheduled in 6/8 months period.  OP No.1 also required him  to clear the IELTS Test for which he had to pay further a sum of Rs.5000/- and he  had to unwillingly take up the said test whereas initially he was told and assured not to give any such test.   Thereafter, he paid Rs.41,000/- as directed by OPs to get the interview letter.    He appeared in the interview but was shocked to know that the Visa Officer had  given only 5 points for his educational qualification, whereas OPs had been assuring him from the very beginning that he would get 12 to 13 points on account of  his educational qualification.  He was awarded 65 points against the requisite 70 points necessary to qualify for the immigration under Independent Category and as such fell short by 5 points to get the permanent immigration, whereas the OPs had intentionally and with malafide motives wrongly assessed and projected his points to be 72 to 73 with 12 points for his education qualification. Resultantly,  immigration case of the  complainant was finally rejected and  the false and misleading reason of Weak English  was attributed by OPs inspite of the fact that complainant secured requisite/high ranking of 6 marks out of 9 on account of English language. It was alleged that the OPs intentionally and willfully in order to mislead the complainant wrongly & falsely projected that he would score total of 72-73 points including 12 to 13 points for educational qualification.  While the immigration case of the complainant was in process, OPs asked the complainant to wind up his business and as such  he had to close his business  being run under the name & style of M/s Gurindra Industry & Auto Engg. Works at Majir Road, Ropar and sold the whole machinery just for Rs.5,53,000/- against the market value of Rs.7.00 lacs at that time. Alleging deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 

4.          OPs contested the complaint before the District Forum by filing joint reply raising a preliminary objection   to the effect that the complainant was barred by time as the complainant’s Permanent Resident Visa for Canada  was rejected by the Canadian High Commission  on 13.9.2005 and the present complaint had been filed on 12.9.2008 after a gap of 3 years.  It was inter-alia stated in the reply  that the complainant was fully eligible as per the information provided by him in the assessment form and also undertaking given by him.   OP Company had duly submitted the application for grant of permanent resident Visa on behalf of complainant and on assessing of the same, the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 31.1.2001 proposed to grant waiver for the personal interview of the complainant but due to change in the immigration laws w.e.f. 28.6.2002 the OP Company was informed with regard to further providing fresh forms in addition to the documents already submitted on behalf of the complainant. Due to changes in the immigration law for grant of Permanent Resident Visa to Canada, the complainant was not given the benefit of his interview waiver and he was later on asked to appear for personal interview before the Visa Officer, which was intimated to him. The complainant had given a specific undertaking as regards the fluency in English, but he could not convince the Visa Officer in the interview.  The case of the complainant was rightly filed before the Canadian High Commission, however, due to the fault as attributable to the complainant himself, he could not clear the interview before the Visa Officer and ultimately the Visa was refused to the complainant by Canadian High Commission, New Delhi vide letter dated 13.9.2005, which was informed to the complainant vide letter dated 23.9.2005. The complainant was advised to file judicial review but he did not do so.  It was further stated that  OPs had received an amount of Rs.25,000/- only as professional fee and balance of Rs.5000/- was still payable. The amount of Rs.14,250/- had been paid to the Canadian High Commission as the Visa Processing Fee and the same was non-refundable. An amount of US $ 700 was payable to M/s WWICS Canada Inc. at the time of receiving the file number, which was received on 8.2.2006 , however, the said payment of US $ 700 along with interest of 136 $ was paid to the said company in the year 2005. The complainant himself failed to fulfill his commitment as given by him vide his letter Annexure R-14. It was pleaded that OPs never asked the complainant to dispose off his unit/machinery as alleged. 

 5.       The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties  allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties   have come up in this appeal.  

 6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties   and gone through the file carefully. The main   point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants/ OPs is that the case for permanent immigration to Canada filed on behalf of the complainant was rejected by the Canada High Commission on 13.9.2005 and the said decision was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 23.9.2005 whereas complaint was filed in September,2008 which was clearly barred by limitation and there was no application for condonation of delay as such the learned District Forum wrongly decided the matter   ignoring this vital aspect. It was further argued that the complainant had entered into two separate contract of engagement at the time of retaining the professional service of OPs.  OP company was to receive Rs.30,000/- as professional fee but complainant  paid only Rs.25,000/-. In addition to the said amount, the complainant had entered into a separate contract of engagement with M/s WWIC Canada Inc. which was a separate company having its head office at Canada to whom complainant was to make payment US$2100 at three different stages but the said company had  not been impleaded as a party. Further, the complainant was not entitled for refund of Rs.14,250/- paid to the Canadian High Commission by way of Bank draft as Visa processing fee of his application because  the said fee was totally non-refundable as per contract of engagement. The Canadian High commission asked the complainant to appear before interview because of change in immigration rules but complainant could not clear the interview                                and his visa application was rejected. However, these points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant.

7.     We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions putforth on behalf of the parties and find that the point of limitation has been rightly dealt with and  decided by the learned District Forum in para-5 & 6 of the impugned order, so, we do not want to dilate upon the said aspect of limitation. The observations made by the learned District Forum in that regard are reproduced as under ; 

5. The counsel for OPs has argued that the Visa was refused to the complainant and the decision was conveyed vide letter dated 13.9.2005 (Annexure R-16) whereas the present complaint was filed by him on 18.9.2008 and the same is, therefore, barred by time. As against it, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the said rejection was not final because the OPs vide Annexure C-21 dated 23.9.2005 while informing the complainant that the rejection was attributable to his faults were blowing hot and cold in the same breath by alleging in the next paragraph that the rejection was unfair and they have already taken up the case with the Canadian High Commission for reconsideration of their decision. He was rather informed that the OPs are hopeful of a positive response and undertook to keep him informed about the progress as and when it occurs. The complainant vide email dated 22.10.2005 (Annexure C-23) complained against the OPs to the Canadian authorities for misleading him and the reply in that respect was received vide Annexure C-24 dated 30.4.2007. The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants informed the complainant (finally) that the file was closed and (shall) remain closed. The OPs also did not inform the complainant after 23.9.2005 about the fate of the letter Annexure C-21. It was, therefore, a continuing cause of action till the complainant received the letter dated 30.4.2007 (Annexure C-24). The cause of action would, therefore, accrue on 30.4.2007 and the present complaint filed on 18.9.2008 would be within limitation. 

6.The complainant had asked the OPs to refund the amount taken from him as fees by misleading him. The OPs assured him that the decision of the Immigration authorities was unfair and they would move the Canadian High Commission for reconsideration of the said decision. They have not so far refunded the amount. It was, therefore, a continuing cause of action and the complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. In any case, the limitation cannot be taken to have started w.e.f. 13.9.2005.

8.        It is pertinent to mention here that the Contract of Engagement Annexure C-2 defined under clause 3 the duties of the OP company. In view of sub clause (a) the OP company was to assess the client’s education, training, skills and experience for Canadian permanent residence and advise him about the Canadian laws regarding Canadian immigration. In view of clause (c) they were also to review and identify for submission of required documents and supporting documents and in view of clause (f) to assist him with respect to preparation for the interview at the processing visa office. Clause (i) provides that the OP company was to faithfully advise the complainant of the ongoing requirements by the visa office with respect to his case but OPs did not give him correct assessment of his case and  allured him to believe that he would receive sufficient units required to qualify for an immigrant visa to Canada, though he did not at all acquired those units for the said purpose.    Had  complainant been given correct and faithful advice as required under the agreement,   he would not have spent money in applying for immigration and spoiled his business.  There is another document  Annexure R-4 wherein  according to  the assessment made by the OPs at page 2,  complainant was given 13 units for education and 9 units for his knowledge of English and French languages under the Immigration Regulations 1978 but when the immigration authorities analyzed the facts, they found that he could get only 5 units for education and 6 units for knowledge of English. The assessment under IRP regulations was 5 units for education and 8 units for official language proficiency of English and French. Thereafter,  OPs  also wrote a letter dated 13.9.2005  (R-17) to the Canadian Authorities representing that only 5 points had been given to the complainant for education whereas he was entitled to 13 points. The Canadian authorities, however, did not agree with the assessment made by the OPs which proved  that the OPs were not upto the mark in the assessment of the complainant’s eligibility for immigration and were just giving false figures to satisfy him.

9.         There is another aspect where the OPs defaulted. As per Annexure R-4 at page 2 the minimum units according to the OPs required to qualify in Assisted Relative Category were 65. They were utterly lacking in this respect because the immigration authorities did not agree to this. In Annexure C-22  the Canadian authorities informed the complainant that 70 units were required to qualify for an immigration visa to Canada whereas he was attaining a total of 65 units. It was mentioned on page 3 of the letter Annexure C-22 that currently 67 units were required for a permanent resident visa though the OPs alleged in Annexure R-4 that only 65 units were required and the complainant was attaining 71 units. On both these counts the service rendered by the OPs was not satisfactory.

10.        It is to add here that the complainant had entered into Contract of Engagement with OP company and paid the entire fee to them. The entire correspondence by the Canadian High Commission was done with the complainant through OP and WWICS Canada Inc. was also a firm of OP in Canada so in these given facts and circumstances they were not necessary parties to  be impleaded. The Visa processing fee was also paid through OPs, but as observed above,  in case    complainant was   correctly advised , he would not have deposited Visa Processing Fee,  so he was rightly held entitled to  refund of the said amount.  

11.       In view of the above discussion, we  are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the District Forum which is quite reasonable and justified and no interference is  called for. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is   dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.