DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.9.2010 passed in appeal No. 268 of 2009 by U. T. Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that on 21.2.2000, Gurinder Singh Saini approached Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (in short, ‘WWICS’)/OP 1 for getting immigration Visa to Canada. The OP 2 is Lt. Col. B. S. Sandhu, Managing Director. The contract was signed between them on 24.2.2000 and for this purpose, he paid Rs.25,000/- in cash to OPs as retainer for immigration/Visa fee. He had applied under independent category for immigration to Canada and deposited the requisite documents and his CV. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs.14,250/- to the Canadian High Commission on account of Visa processing fee. On 31.1.2001, the complainant got communication from the Canadian High Commission and asked for some more documents, which were duly supplied in time. The OP-1 had assured the complainant about waiver from the interview, but the waiver was not given and the interview was scheduled after 6/8 months. The OP-1 told him to clear IELTS test, for which initially the complainant was assured not to give any such test. For IELTS test, the complainant paid Rs. 5,000/-. Again, the complainant paid Rs.41,000/- to get interview letter and appeared in the interview but 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 to qualify for immigration under independent category; hence, due to short fall of 5 points, he could not get the permanent immigration. It was alleged that the OPs with mala fide motives, had wrongly assessed his points to 70 to 73 showing 12 points against his education qualification. So, finally, the immigration case of the complainant was rejected despite good score in the IELTS language test. Thus, it was alleged that the OPs intentionally and willfully misled the complainant. The OPs asked the complainant to wind up his business during immigration process; therefore, he had closed his business, which was running under the name and style of M/s Gurindra Industry & Auto Engg. Works at Ropar and sold entire machinery for meagre amount of Rs.5,53,000/-. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, UT Chandigarh. 3. The OPs contested the complaint by filing joint written version and raised preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by time as the Visa was rejected on 13.9.2005 whereas the complaint was filed on 12.9.2008 i.e. after three years. The OP/company had duly submitted the application form for grant of permanent Visa on behalf of the complainant and assessed the same. Initially, the Canadian High Commission vide order dated 31.1.2001, proposed to grant waiver of personal interview of the complainant but due to change in immigration laws from June, 2002, the OP/company was called for fresh forms in addition to previous document submitted on behalf of the complainant. Hence, the complainant was called for personal interview before Visa Officer, which was duly intimated to him. The complainant had also given specific undertaking with respect to the fluency in English, but he could not convince the Visa Officer in interview. As per OPs, they had filed the complainant’s documents before Canadian High Commission; however, due to fault of complainant himself, he could not clear the interview before Visa Officer. Hence, Visa was denied. The complainant was advised for judicial review but he did not do so. The complainant had only paid Rs.25,000/- only as a professional fee and balance of Rs.5000/- was still payable. The Visa fee of Rs.14,250/- paid to Canadian High Commission and the same was not refundable and the complainant had paid US $700 to M/s WWICS, Canada at the time of receiving the file number, which was received on 8.2.2006. However, the said payment of US $ 700 with interest of 136 $ was paid to the company in the year 2005. The OPs have never asked the complainant to dispose of his unit/machinery, as alleged. 4. The District Forum, UT Chandigarh, after going through the evidence and hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to refund Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.14,250/- plus US $836 alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony within 30 days. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OPs preferred first appeal before the State Commission, UT Chandigarh. It was dismissed. Against the impugned order of State Commission, the OPs filed the instant revision petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners/OPs submitted that Visa was rejected due to the fault of the complainant himself and there was no major role of OPs except forwarding the documents. The letter of rejection of Visa was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 23.9.2005, whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2008. Hence, the complaint was barred by time. There was no application for condonation of delay as such filed before the District Forum. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant denied the arguments of OP. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the OPs should refund the amount taken from the complainant; as OPs have not kept their word as assured, it was the continuous cause of action because the amount was not refunded; hence, the complaint could not be dismissed on the ground as it is barred by time. The OPs failed to give him correct advice to seek immigration. They indulged in illegal earnings of the foreign currency from the complainant. The counsel submitted that in sub-clause (a) of clause 3 of the agreement/contract, ‘the company was to assess the clients education, training, skills and experience for Canadian permanent residence and advise him about the Canadian laws respecting 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 is to faithfully advise the complainant of the ongoing requirements by the visa office with respect to his case.’ 8. The OPs had assessed the complainant and gave him 13 points for education and 9 points for his knowledge of English and French. However, the immigration authorities analyzed the same to only 5 units and 6 units for knowledge of English. Thus, the OPs submitted that the complainant’s eligibility for immigration was not upto the mark. Thus, it was a deficiency in service. If correct assessment had been made by the OPs about the units, he could gain for his educational qualifications; the complainant would not have applied for immigration and would have saved his valuable time and money. The contention of the complainant was that due to the false assurance given by the OPs, he even had sold away his business under presumption of getting immigration to Canada soon. 9. We are of the considered view that the OPs failed in their duty and it was deficiency in service on the part of OPs, who did not assess correctly the complainant’s education and other points etc. The OPs further did not assist the complainant with respect to preparation for the interview, but extracted the money by giving him wrong advice. If correct advice had been given by OPs to the complainant, he would not have spent huge moneys with Canadian High Commission and Visa processing etc. 10. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. |
