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

========

[1] Mrs. Rajvinder Kaur d/o Kulwinder Singh and wife of Chamkaur Singh;

[2] Chamkaur Singh s/o Jagdev Singh;

Both r/o Village Badala Mahi, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.

…..Complainants

                 V E R S U S

Healthway Immigration Consultant Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/ Authorized Officer having its Office at SCO No. 49-51, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh. Vikas Bali, for Complainant.

               Sh. Divanshu Jain, Counsel for OP.

PER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         The complainant being lured from the advertisements, seminars organized by the OP, visited them at their Office at Chandigarh.  The OP also lured the complainants that they will arrange for study visa for U.K. to complainant No.1 and that in this study visa, the complainant No.2 i.e. husband of complainant No.1 will also get the spouse visa.  The OP showed false dreams of working and settlement in U.K. to the complainant and also assured, that it will also take care of the funds, to be shown to the embassy for Visa purposes. The OP also gave assurance that they are accredited and approved by number of colleges and universities in U.K.

         The OP told the complainant that they will charge Rs.10,000/- for offer letter for study in UK and Rs.75,500/- as fee out of which Rs.63,000/- has to be paid in advance and remaining amount of Rs.12,500/- will be paid later on.  The OP also told that they will charge Rs.1,50,000/- for Show money of Rs.20,00,000/- and assured that complainant will get admission in a reputed British College, which is well approved from UK Government and British Border Agency.  The OP assured with certainty to get the Visa from U.K. and in case the visa is refused or in any case the OP is not able to get the Visa then the entire amount shall be refunded to the complainants.

         On being convinced, the complainant, as alleged, paid Rs.73,000/- (Rs.10,000/- charges for the Offer Letter for study in UK and Rs.63,000/- as an advance) out of total Rs.75,500/- as fee.  OP also obtained signatures from the complainants on number of documents including one contract letter (Annexure C-1) and issued Receipt No.26085, dated 20.10.2009 as token of payment (Annexure C-2).  Then, OP contacted the complainant and informed that they are in receipt of the Offer Letter; hence, the complainants has to submit all educational documents in original, along with copies of passport. The OP, as alleged, also told to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards Show money of Rs.20,00,000/- to obtain study visa to U.K.  The complainants paid the said amount and submitted the documents, as asked for.  The OP also told to pay 1700/- Great British Pound (GBP) out of 3500/- GBP as course fee to them. Thereafter,the complainants, as alleged, paid Rs.1,30,000/- as half of the course fee i.e. 1700 GBP as per prevailing rate of Rs.76.00 = 1 GBP (Annexure C-4).  On 4.12.2009 the complainants also paid Rs.12,500/- vide Receipt No.10529, dated 4.12.2009 (Ann.C-6) for preparing the file.  Then complainant No.1 visited OP in Jan.,2010 whereupon, she was told that she has to visit the British Visa Application Office and was also told to bring Rs.24,000/- as visa fee, which was to be paid then & there, failing which the visa application form would not be accepted.  The complainants visited the Office of OP and deposited Rs.24,000/- along with the application form.  Thereafter, the complainant No.1 was assured by the OP that they will get the visa in order to settle in U.K., but she was shocked to know that the U.K.Border Agency has black listed the College, in which she was admitted by the OP and therefore, the Visa of the complainant No.1 was refused.  When the OP contacted, they agreed to return the amount and costs incurred by the complainants, but later refused to refund. Hence, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of the OP as deficiency in rendering service. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,65,000/- paid by the complainant as well as Rs.24,000/- paid as visa fee to Embassy besides other unaccountable misc. expenses such as traveling, telephones etc. and further interest @24% calculated from the date this payment was made.  It is further prayed that the OP be directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused and harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in services rendered by the OP.   

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking its version of the case.

3.         The OP in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the entire amount i.e. Rs.73,000/- obtained as Retainer fee charges was returned to the complainant through cheque which was duly encashed by the complainant on 5^th February, 2011.  It is asserted that in order to settle the dispute amicably, the OP had also attached a cheque of Rs.12,500/- bearing Cheque No.569444, dated 4.4.2011 which was taken as Embassy Fee but was paid to the Embassy;  infact, they did not even retain this amount. It is averred that the allegations of the complainants with regard to allurement are being made totally in air and infact, a concocted story. It is further pleaded, that the entire amount charged and retained by the OPs stands paid to the complainants and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has been denied that any such assurance was ever given to the complainants for grant of visa as the grant or refusal of visa completely depends upon the discretion of Embassy Authorities and OP has no control over it. It has been pleaded that as per Clause 6 of the Contract of Engagement, the OP would not be responsible, in any way, if visa is refused; in that case the above amount would be non-refundable. Accordingly, as per Clause 3 of the Contract of Engagement, the OP would not assist the client to obtain any financial/property document.  It is also stated, supra, Clause 6 of the Contract of Engagement, which clearly provides that the final authority to grant the “Study Visa” lies with the concerned Embassy, primarily based on client’s candidature, which was duly conveyed to the potential candidate. It is strictly denied that any amount of 1700 GBP was ever asked to be paid by the complainants to the OP.  The OP performed all the duties with sense of utmost responsibility and complete sincerity, like exhaustive consultation, advising and guiding the complainants from the standpoint of U.K. High Commission. Moreover, downloading of material from the internet etc. is also done by the OP. Thus no negligence or deficiency can be attributed to the OP at all.  All other material contentions of the complaint was controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

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

6.       The contention of the complainant in this complaint is that being lured by the false promises and assurances given by the OP, for getting study visa in U.K.; the Visa was refused despite paying a hefty amount to the OP on different point of time. Thereafter, the OP agreed to return the entire amount and cost incurred by the complainants.

7.       On the other hand, the OP had made it categorically clear that the entire amount of Rs.73,000/-  (Annexure C-2) charged from the complainant as retainer fee, has already been returned to the complainants, as per the terms & conditions of the Contract of Engagement (Ann.R-1) duly signed by the complainants, and the same has been encashed by the complainant.

8.       The OP has further pleaded that in order to settle the dispute amicably,they have also attached a cheque of Rs.12,500/-, which was taken by them as Embassy Fee from the complainants.  They also pleaded that no over and above payment was ever made or received, as alleged by the complainants.  The OP has further contended that they are dealing only in providing assistance and advisory services for tourist and study visa’s and does not provide any kind of assistance for work purposes. They strictly and vehemently denied that any assurance was ever given by them for grant of Visa as the grant or refusal of visa is the discretion of the Embassy Authorities; over which the OP has no control at all. Being only an advisory and consultancy organization for advising and helping the people in order to facilitate their process.  Clause 6 of the Contract of Engagement, duly signed by the complainants, is legally enforceable in the eyes of law.  Therefore, the Contract of Engagement clearly provides that the final authority to grant the “Study Visa” lies with the concerned Embassy, primarily based on client’s candidature, which had been conveyed to the potential candidate.  Moreover, it has been also provided in the said Contract of Engagement that the OP Company will not be responsible, in any way, if visa is refused.

9.       The OP has pleaded that it has performed all its duties diligently without even any slight negligence on their part and obtaining visa is highly subjective process, which involves multiple factors including discretion of the Embassy Authorities. 

10.      In view of the foregoing, it has been made out that the complainant No.1,herself, is an educated lady,who was seeking Study Visa on a foreign land.  It cannot be thought of, from such an educated person that she has not read the form, which is duly filled-in and signed by her. It cannot be expected from such a person, who is seeking Study Visa that she has not filled and signed this form with open eyes, as is evident from Clause 6.2 of Ex.C-4 (Student Self Assessment) at Page 16, which is reproduced as below:-

“6.2 Have any of your course fee been paid ?  Put a cross (X) in the relevant box.

Yes – Paid to UK Education Provider. Enter the amount in the box below then – Go to Question 6.3.

11.      This is further a cogent evidence that 1700 ponds has been paid to U.K.Education provider and the complainant No.1 has rightly and correctly replied in affirmative.

12.      It is crystal clear on record and from the above mentioned facts that the fee is directly paid by the complainant-1 to U.K. education provider and not to the OP.  In this way, the OP cannot be asked to refund that money, which had gone to U.K. Education provider; meaning thereby that the matter now remains between the U.K. Education provider and the complainant-1.

13.      Moreover, at the time of arguments, the ld.Counsel for the OP was ready to pay Rs.12,500/- in the form of a cheque, which was charged from the complainants on account of Embassy Fee.

14.      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.12,500/- to the complainants (as agreed earlier) along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation.  The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2500/- as litigation cost.

15.      This order be complied with by the OP, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.10.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.2500/-.

16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.