KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 690/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 03-03-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT APPELLANTS 1. M/s World Wide Immigration Consultancy Service, Regd. Office S C O 2415/16, Section 22.C. Chandigarh –160022. 2. Lt. Col. B.S. Sandhu (Rtd), Managing Director, W W I C S, Regd. Office, SCO 2415/16, Section 22.C, Chandigarh – 160022. 3. Lt. Col. Lakhvir Singh (Rtd) Branch Manager, M/s World Wide Immigration Consultancy Service, Kuravankonam Junction, Kowdiar P.O., Thiruvananthapruam – 695 003. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Vettoor S. Prakash) Vs RESPONDENT Krishna Radha Shambu, T.C. 15/1191, ‘Mudra’, KLRA 116, Kukkiliya Road, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram –14. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. A. Subramonian) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC No. 137/2003 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with compensation of Rs. 1,500/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as well as interest at 12% if the amounts are not paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The case of the complainant is that he paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite parties for arranging Canadian Permanent Visa. The opposite parties failed to provide the same causing much financial and mental strain to the complainant. They have also refused to refund the amount received and promised only to return Rs. 15,000/-. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement and that the venue of the arbitration is agreed to be at Chandigarh. It is also contended that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- is not refundable. It is alleged that the necessary documents were not submitted despite repeated reminders. It is also contended that the complainant was directed to learn French which is mandatory for immigration. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective parties, Exts. P1 to P6 and D1. 5. We find that the Forum has rightly pointed out that the contention with respect to the non-maintainability cannot be upheld. Section 3 of the CP Act specifically provides that the provisions of the statute is in addition to the provisions of any other law. It is the settled proposition that existence of the arbitration clause is not a bar for the entertainment of the complaint by the CDRFs and Commission. 6. As pointed out in the order of the Forum, the stance of the opposite parties is that no amount is refundable whereas as per Ext.P6 letter sent by them, they have agreed to refund Rs. 15,000/-. But, the same was not refunded also. It is also noted that as per the representation of the opposite parties vide letter sent to the complainant the qualifying points for eligibility has been brought down to 67 from 75 and hence requirement to learn French is not mandatory. Further, the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to establish that learning of French is mandatory. Further, there is no justification for not refunding any amount. At best they would be entitled only for a proportionate retention of the amount for the services rendered if any. In the instant case, the opposite parties/appellants have opted for a cantankerous stance and refused to refund any amount which has compelled the complainant to approach the Forum. In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. We find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT | 
