JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant / respondent who was desirous of obtaining a Canadian Visa approached the petitioner company in terms of the advertisement given by it in the newspapers.  The petitioner allegedly persuaded the complainant / respondent to apply for a visa under Federal Business Category / Investment Category, instead of applying for a Dependent Visa to meet his son who is settled in Canada.  He was allegedly assured that he would get visa within 8-10 months.  The complainant / respondent submitted the requisite documents for this purpose to the petitioner and also paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- by way of  three different cheques / drafts, including a draft in the name of Global Strategic Business Consultancy, which the petitioner claimed to be its offshore subsidiary.  The complainant also paid visa fee amounting to Rs.45,940/- by way of a draft in the name of the concerned Embassy.  However, for as many as 44 months, the complainant received no decision on his visa application.  On 13.2.2004, the complainant came to know, through newspapers, that Canadian Government had dropped all visas under Federal Business Category / Investment Category Programmes.  The complainant, on seeing the aforesaid news item, went to the office of the petitioner company and sought refund of the amount which he had paid to it.  No refund however, was paid to him.  On 30.1.2015, he received a letter directly from the Canadian Embassy, informing that his case had been terminated and he could receive back his application fee with interest.  On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the complainant again approached the petitioner but could get no relief from it.  Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the entire amount paid by him, along with compensation etc.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company, primarily on the ground that the complainant could not get visa on account of change of Immigration rules by Canadian Government and the application of the complainant was terminated by the Government.  It was also alleged in the reply that the complainant had entered into an independent agreement with Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai and paid an amount of US$ 2800 to the aforesaid company.  It was also claimed that in terms of Clause 9 (a), the complainant was not entitled to refund.  As regard the amount received from the Canadian High Commission, it was claimed that the said amount was being paid to the complainant.  On merits it was admitted that the complainant had approached the petitioner company in connection with the grant of Visa under Federal Business Category / Investment Category Programme.  It was however, denied that the petitioner had assured the complainant that his case would be decided within 8-10 months.  It was claimed that the evaluation of such applications was expected to take atleast 12 months.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 05.2.2016, dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant / respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 08.8.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by him and directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as well as the visa fee of Rs.45,940/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum and compensation, including cost of litigation quantified at Rs.50,000/-.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4.      Clause 2(w) of the Agreement between the parties reads as under:

          “2(w) The client agrees that he / she shall correspond with the respective Visa Post / High Commission through the company only and that he / she shall not change the correspondence address without seeking prior approval of the company.  A penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be charged if the client is found to be dealing directly or through any other representative (other than WWICS Ltd.) at any address other than that of the company.  Besides, the company shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the client to recover any unpaid amount if any out of the total fee.  In the event of rejection of the application as a result of discrepancies caused due to direct dealing by the client, client shall be solely responsible for that and shall not be entitled to any refund thereafter”.

          Clause 16 of the said Agreement reads as under:

          “16.   Support to the Client:

1. The client would be provided with specialized services by a team of professionals having vast experience and exposure in their relevant fields.

2. All services to the client would be provided under the direct supervision of CSIC (Canadian Socieity of Immigration Consultants) member Mr. Devinder Sandhu (Registration / Membership No. M-42344)/Mr. Parvinder Sandhu (Registration / Membership No. M-041642).

3. Clients’ case for Immigration would be prepared and submitted under the supervision of Mr. Devinder Sandhu / Mr. Parvinder Sandhu who has been engaged by the company to handle immigration matter.Mr. Devinder Sandhu / Mr. Parvinder Sandhu is a member of Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) with Membership number M042344/M041642 respective. Address of CSIC is as under:

   390-Baystreet, Suite 1600, Munich Re Center, Toronto, Ontaria Canada M5H2Y2, Telephone No.-416-5722800, Telephone No. -1-866-308-CSIC(2742) Fax No. -416-472-4114,

   6.      This is a clear cut case of deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to the complainant and as a result of the aforesaid deficiency, not only the petitioner was deprived of the amount paid by him to the petitioner and M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, he also had to suffer mental agony and harassment of an unsuccessful wait of almost five years for obtaining a visa.  The order passed by the State Commission therefore is eminently justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.