STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Jasvir Kaur wife of Inderpal Singh, Resident of Village Wadala Mahi, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur,

Through Special Power of Attorney Kulwinder Kaur wife of Tarsem Lal, Resident of Village Wadala Mahi, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

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

              ....Respondent/Opposite Party

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the appellant.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), being time barred.

2.               According to the complainant, she was allured by the advertisements and seminars, organized by the Opposite Party, and, as such, she contacted the Opposite Party, about the immigration process, in the month of November 2009. The Opposite Party allured the complainant, that it will arrange her Study Visa of United Kingdom (U.K.), apart from spouse Visa, for her husband.  The Opposite Party, showed false dreams of working and settlement, in U.K., to the complainant and assured her, not to worry for the funds, which were to be shown to the Embassy, for the purpose of issuance of visa. The Opposite Party also assured the complainant, that it was accredited and approved by a number of Colleges and Universities, in U.K.  On being convinced by the Opposite Party, the complainant arranged the amount, demanded by it, and visited its Office, on 16.12.2009, alongwith her husband. She paid an amount of Rs.73,000/-, to the Opposite Party, and her signatures were obtained, on a number of documents, by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party also issued receipt no.27140 dated 16.12.2009, for Rs.73,000/-, copy whereof is Annexure C-2.  The Opposite Party also obtained the photocopies of passport of the complainant. The complainant was assured that her work would be done and she would be informed through telephone, about the progress of her case.  After about one week, the Opposite Party, contacted the complainant, and intimated that, it had received the offer letter. She was asked to submit the documents of educational qualifications, in original, and pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, for the fees settled, to arrange for show money of Rs.20,00,000/-, for study visa of U.K.  The Opposite Party also asked the complainant to pay 1700 G.B.P. (Great British Pound) out of 3500 G.B.P., as course fee, to it. In January, 2010, the complainant, alongwith her father and husband, visited the Office of the Opposite Party, and paid an amount of 1700 G.B.P. (Rs.1,30,000/- cash), apart from Rs.1,50,000/-, in cash, for arrangement of show money, for which the Opposite Party did not issue any receipt. 

3.               It was stated that U.K. Border Agency black-listed a number of Colleges in U.K. It was further stated that the College, in which the complainant got admission, through the Opposite Party, was also black-listed by it (U.K. Border Agency). The Opposite Party requested the complainant, to apply for immigration to Canada. On the allurement of the Opposite Party, the complainant, on 30.3.2010, paid an amount of Rs.6,400/- and Rs.10,000/-, receipts whereof, are Annexures C-3 and C-4, respectively.  The complainant contacted the Opposite Party, on telephone, and she was told that the visa shall be applied, in the first week of April, 2010, upon which, she went to the Office of the Opposite Party, and filled the application forms etc.  The complainant was also taken to the local Canadian Visa Application Office, at Chandigarh, alongwith representative of the Opposite Party, for the purpose of submitting the papers of Study Visa for Canada. The complainant was assured by the Opposite Party, that she would get the visa for Canada. She was further assured that she and her husband would get settled in Canada.  It was further stated that, to the utter shock of the complainant, the High Commission of Canada, refused visa to her. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Opposite Party, a number of times, for refund of her money, but it dilly-dallied the matter, on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.3,69,400/-, paid by her, for getting the visa, for her, as also for her husband;  pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.4 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and interest @24% P.A., on the aforesaid amounts.

4.            The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was hopelessly time barred and not maintainable. It was denied that the complainant attended any Seminar, organized by the Opposite Party. It was stated that the complainant and her husband, being educated persons, put up a false and concocted story, about allurement by the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that, no pressure was exercised, upon the complainant or her husband, to pay the non-refundable amount/fees. It was further stated that the complainant, herself, signed the documents, after going through the details therein. It was further stated that the visa was to be granted/rejected by the Embassy concerned, and the Opposite Party, had no role, to play therein. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.73,000/-, was charged from the complainant, as consultation and College registration fee/charges for U.K., Student Visa.  It was denied that a demand of Rs.1,50,000/-, for show money, to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, was made from the complainant, by the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that, as per the document Annexure C-2, the Opposite Party did not give any guarantee to the complainant for getting study visa for her or her husband.  It was further stated that the black-listing of a number of Colleges in U.K., was beyond the control of the Opposite Party, or anybody else.  It was further stated that the complainant, after understanding that black-listing of Colleges, was not under the control of the Opposite Party, had sought visa for Canada.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.               In the replication, filed by the complainant, she reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party

6.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.               On 27.11.2012, when the complaint was fixed for arguments, none put in appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Party.

8.               After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

9.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

10.            We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the admission stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

11.            The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the complainant had a continuing cause of action, for filing the complaint, especially, when she was neither granted Canadian Study Visa, as assured by the Opposite Party, nor the amount paid by her was refunded by it (Opposite Party). He further submitted that the District Forum, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion that cause of action, arose to the complainant, on 30.03.2010, when she made the last payments of Rs.64,000/-, and Rs.10,000/-, vide receipts Annexures C-3 and C-4, respectively. He further submitted that even, thereafter, a legal notice was issued to the Opposite Party, and when it did not reply to the same, only thereafter, the cause of action, could arise to the complainant, to file the Consumer Complaint. He further submitted that the complaint was, thus, within the period of  limitation. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

12.            The last payments were made by the complainant, in the sum of Rs.64,000/-  vide receipt no.7805 dated 30.03.2010 Annexure C-3 and Rs.10,000/-, vide receipt no.7806 dated 30.03.2010  Annexure C-4. The cause of action, thus, accrued to the complainant, to file a Consumer Complaint, on 30.03.2010. She could file a Consumer Complaint, within 2 years, from the date of accrual of cause of action, on 30.03.2010, as envisaged by Section 24A of the Act. There was no continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant. She could make representation, within 2 years, from the date of last payments, made by her, and if her grievance, had not been redressed, by the Opposite Party, then it was required of her, to file a Consumer Complaint, but before the expiry of 2 years, from 30.03.2010, as envisaged by Section 24A of the Act. She, however, filed the complaint on 27.07.2012. Mere issuance of a legal notice, by the complainant, to the Opposite Party, could not extend the  period of limitation. It is settled principle of law, that once the period of limitation starts running, no subsequent event, can prevent the running of the same. In the complaint, in so many words, it was stated by the complainant, that her visa was denied by the High Commission of Canada, but no document, with regard to the same, was placed, on record, by her, before the District Forum. Even, no application for condonation of delay, in filing the complaint, was moved by the complainant, before the District Forum. In our considered opinion, the District Forum was, thus, right, in holding that the complaint was barred by time, and, as such, the same was liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone. The findings of the District Forum,  in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

13.            The question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum, could decide the complaint, on merits, especially, when it came to the conclusion, that the same (complaint) was barred by time. The answer to this question, is in the negative, as provided by the Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), II(2009)CPJ 29(SC). The question before the Apex Court, was with regard to the condonation of  delay, in filing the complaint, in the first instance, beyond the period of two years, as envisaged by Section 24A of the Act. The Apex Court was pleased to observe as under ;

“Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus:

“24A. Limitation period—(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

14.            The principle of law, laid down, by the Apex Court in State Bank of India’s case (supra), is fully  applicable to the instant case. Had the District Forum decided the complaint, on merits, after coming to the conclusion, that it was barred by time, it would have amounted to committing an illegality, in view of the principle of law, laid down in  State Bank of India’s case(supra). The District Forum, therefore, was right in not deciding the complaint, on merits, after holding the same (complaint), being barred by time. The order of the District Forum, in this regard, is liable to be upheld.

15.               No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

16.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

17.            For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is  dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order impugned of the District Forum is upheld.

18.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

19.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

01.03.2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No. 56 of 2013)

Argued by: Sh. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the appellant.

Dated the   1^st     day of   March     2013

ORDER

              We have gone through the application, moved by the appellant, for placing, on record, Annexures A-1 to A-3, and have perused the record.

2.              The documents, aforesaid, were very much, in the possession and knowledge of the appellant, when she was leading evidence in the District Forum. No plausible reason, has been assigned, as to what prevented the appellant, from producing these documents on record, in the District Forum. Thus, there is no justification, whatsoever, to allow the application, for placing on record Annexures A-1 to A-3, at this stage. The application is accordingly dismissed.

3.              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

Rg.