STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Ms. Harpreet Kaur daughter of Tarlochan Singh, resident of Village Sill, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) 140301.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

Healthyway Immigration Consultants Private Limited, S.C.O. 49-51, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh through its Director Sukhdev Singh (SCO 46 was typographical error in address written in complaint now it is corrected as SCO 49-51).

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

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

2.          

3.           Visa. It was further stated that it was the choice of the complainant to opt for the said Country and she approached the Opposite Party for arranging her Visa after going through all the terms, conditions and formalities, of the contract of engagement. It was further stated that once the complainant opted and chose the Opposite Party to process her Visa application, she could not take advantage that her two academic years were wasted. It was further stated that the Visa was to be given by the Canadian Embassy. The Opposite Party was only to provide assistance for securing Visa from any Embassy. It was further stated that there was no provision for refunding the amount. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.           

5.          

6.           

7.          

8.           

9.          

10.         

11.         Canada. Whatever, the case may be, the services of the Opposite Party, were hired by the complainant, for obtaining the student Visa. As is evident from Annexures C-1 and C-2, the appellant/complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/Opposite Party, on 15.3.2010 and 24.5.2010 respectively. The appellant/complainant has specifically submitted that she neither issued any No Objection Certificate nor affixed any thumb impression on any paper. She also filed her affidavit to this effect. A perusal of this document, Annexure OP-1, reveals that it is on the letterhead of the respondent/Opposite Party. On the other hand, the respondent/Opposite Party has failed to rebut the contention of the appellant/complainant, by adducing any expert evidence of a handwriting expert that Annexure

12.        

13. 

14.        

15.        

16.        

17.        

(i)      to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- to the appellant/complainant;

(ii)     to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, to the appellant/complainant;

(iii)   to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the appellant/complainant;

18. realization and interest @12% per annum, on the amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii) of Para 17, from the date of default, till realization, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

19.        

20.        

Pronounced.

February 11, 2014.

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.541 of 2013)

Argued by:

Dated the

ORDER

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been accepted, with cost. The order of the District Forum has been set aside. The complaint has been partly accepted.

Ad