Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is devoid of any merit.  

Upon consideration of the material on record, including the receipt issued for charging `25,000/- as Consultation Charges and Registration Fee for admission in a college abroad, as also the No Objection Certificate, alleged to have been executed by the complainant, both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that having received the said amount from the complainant, the petitioner company did not arrange for either Student Visa or admission in any institution. In the process the complainant, besides losing money, has lost two valuable academic years.  The defence raised on behalf of the petitioner company to the effect that the complainant having issued a No Objection Certificate no deficiency in service could be alleged against them, has also not found favour with the Fora below.  

On a pointed query by us, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out as to what kind of service was rendered by the petitioner to the complainant after receiving the aforestated amounts, except for stating that the petitioner had provided to the complainant information regarding various colleges. It is hard to believe that the complainant would have paid the stated amount as consideration for only getting the information about various colleges in Australia or Canada, as the case may be, more so, when such information is available on the internet/websites.  

In its written version, filed before the District Forum, the claim made by the complainant was resisted only on the pleas that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled in the year 2010 and that the petitioner company had charged the said amount for arranging Canada student visa and not for visa for Australia.  However, it is not stated as to why even visa for Canada was not arranged.  Be that as it may, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in the revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly. 

IA No.3092/2014(for directions {for stay of execution proceedings} 

The main Revision Petition having been dismissed, the interim application is rendered infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.