DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No.11 of 10-01-2007<br /> Decided on : 14-06-2007 <br /> <br /> Sanjeev K. Garg S/o Sh. Prem Chand Garg, R/o 2755, Street No. 4, Nai Basti,. Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> 1.Magic Lamp International Group, Canada Immigration Consultants, Clock Tower, 100 ft. Chowk, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./partner/authorized representative Parmeet Singh<br /> 2.HDFC Bank Ltd., Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer<br /> Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. J.P.S. Brar, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. S.M. Goyal, Advocate, for opposite party No. 1..<br /> Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocte, for opposite parry No. 2. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainant is a Chartered Accountant by profession. Canadian Government had floated scheme to give immigration to foreign citizens on the basis of certain points which were the criteria of eligibility to get immigration for Canada. He was allured by immigration scheme. Opposite party No. 1 was contacted by him. It represented itself to be Canada Immigration Consultants. On its assurance to the effect that its functionaries are competent and are able to manage in getting immigration for him, he availed its professional assistance. Opposite party No. 1 had agreed to provide service. Accordingly, complainant on demand of opposite party No. 1 made payment of Rs. 11,500/- as part payment of whole agreement amount of $ 1500 to opposite party No. 1 vide receipt No. 1203 dated 6.6.06. Parneet Singh, representative of opposite party No.1 issued receipt and agreement was also executed between him and opposite party No. 1 whereby opposite party No. 1 had assured him that in case of rejection/non-acceptance of application on any ground, it would make the refund of the aforesaid amount to him. Complainant provided all the requisite documents as desired by opposite party No. 1 including demand draft No. 004007 dated 12.6.06 for a sum of $ 1250 CAD issued by opposite party No. 2 against Indian currency of Rs. 42.19 per $. All the documents alongwith aforesaid demand draft were delivered to opposite party No. 1 for sending them to the Canadian Embassy for the grant of immigration. Opposite party No. 1 forwarded documents as well as demand draft to the Canadian Embassy after minutely going through them as per its professional skill for which a sum of Rs. 11,500/- was charged from him. Subsequently he was apprised by opposite party No. 1 that his application has been rejected by Canadian Embassy vide letter dated 21.9.06 on the sole ground “Issuing Branch Name is required”. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 handed over the letter to him alongwith demand draft. He asserts that he is not at fault in any manner. It was for opposite party No. 1 to deal with the application properly. It was also the duty of opposite party No. 2 to mention its proper name, address of the branch and issue proper and valid demand draft. Non mentioning of the proper name and its address by opposite party No. 2 on the demand draft amount to negligent act and conduct on its part. Similarly non-perusal of the application, other documents and demand draft by opposite party No. 1 properly shows negligence in the services availed by him. Hence, both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. He has lost opportunity to visit Canada as skilled worker and his further chances have also diminished. He had got the demand draft of $ 1250 from opposite party No. 2 against Indian currency of Rs. 42.19 per dollar (totaling Rs. 52,834/-), whereas on receiving back the demand draft, he has to get the same cancelled and encashed @ Rs. 38.32 per dollar (totaling Rs. 47,900/-). In this manner he suffered loss of Rs. 4934/-. Further he has suffered interest loss for the period from 12.6.06 to 5.12.06 on the amount of Rs. 52,834/- which comes to Rs. 4500/-. He has undergone loss in income to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- as he remained busy for 3-4 months watching and contacting the opposite party No. 1 and Candian Embassy to know about the fate of his application due to which he could not do his professional work of Chartered Accountancy. Apart from this, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was spent in preparing the documents. He is also entitled to Rs. 11,500/- paid to opposite party No. 1 alongwith interest. In this manner, he suffered total loss to the tune of Rs. 47,000/-. Further he has undergone mental tension, agony loss of physical health and reputation for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2.00 Lacs. In these circumstances, he has preferred this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 47,000/- as detailed above; Rs. 2.00 Lacs as damages and Rs. 5500/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed its version taking legal objections that there is no deficiency in service on its part as there is no defect in the work done and the services provided by it; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; he had specifically agreed, consented and executed agreement to the extent that he retains the services of ALAA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN to assist and advise him and to represent him to the Government of Canada with respect to his application for immigration to Canada. Baseless objection has been raised by the Embassy. Accordingly ALAA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN and Embassy are necessary parties. He has partly paid consultancy fee. It has been specifically mentioned in the agreement that consultancy fee is refundable only after deducting administrative cost of US$ 500 and also subject to the reasons mentioned in it. Complainant has paid only US$ 250 as consultancy fee and remaining fee is recoverable. As per agreement before any refund is claimed, complainant should take appropriate action for reviewing his application by immigration authorities. After the complainant had completed the formalities, his application was despatched on 28.6.06 through courier service. It was returned by the Embassy vide letter dated 21.9.06 with the objection “Issuing Branch name is required” Infact opposite party No.2 had not mentioned name of the branch issuing the demand draft. This defect was curable within a minute by taking the draft to opposite party No. 2 but the complainant kept it and the application with him for more than two and half months. He did not intimate that he wanted to get the amount of demand draft refunded. It appears that complainant had malafide intention of not paying the remaining consultancy fee. He changed is mind not to go Abroad. It is in these circumstances that he did not get the stamp of the issuing branch affixed on the demand draft from opposite party No. 2 for resubmitting the application for reviewing and processing his case. To go to Canada, it is not a process of a day or so. Rather it takes months and even years together. Hence it is legally entitled to demand balance money from the complainant. Name of issuing branch was to be mentioned by opposite party No. 2. Due to mistake, negligence or wrong on the part of opposite party No. 2, it cannot be blamed. Moreover, Embassy was not competent to adjudge that the demand draft was not properly stamped. Instead of raising the objection right course to the Embassy was to present the cheque . It was for the drawee bank to decide as to whether the draft was payable or defective. Application of the complainant for immigration has not been rejected. Complainant has no cause of action. Complainant should have approached the civil court seeking specific performance of alleged agreement. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this case which cannot be properly adjudicated upon by this forum in summary manner. It is further added by it that it did not enter into contact guaranteeing success to get Visa for immigration; Complaint is false and frivolous; Complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum; complainant is not consumer; he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and he has not come with clean hands. Services of consultancy and other assistance were to be provided by ALLA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN and it (opposite party No. 1) is merely an agent of ALLA EL- DIN ABOU SHARBIN and as such, it is not liable. It had acted not on behalf of the complaint but on behalf of ALLA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN. To provide legal valid and effective demand draft was the responsibility of the complainant. Moreover, inference that demand draft was issued by Bathinda Branch can be drawn from the second line of the demand draft which reads “RE 0.36/BTI/1250”. Word “BTI” refers to issuing Branch name as Bathinda. Demend draft is issued with the signatures of duly authorised signatories of the bank and their specimen signatures with their identity/code number remain with bank and also with the bank on which it is drawn for payment. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint. <br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply taking legal objections that complaint is false and frivolous; complainant has concealed material facts from this forum; ALLA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN and Canadian Embassy are necessary parties and they have not been impleaded as opposite parties, as such complaint is liable to be dismissed; complaint is not maintainable and complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file it. On merits it does not specifically deny that complainant is Chartered Account by profession and Canadian Government had got published the scheme for giving immigration to foreign citizens on the basis of certain points which were the criteria of eligibility to get immigration for Canada. It denies for want of knowledge that complainant had contacted opposite party No. 1 which had represented itself to be Canadian Immigration Consultants and that he availed its professional assistance for getting immigration and that payment of Rs. 11,500/- as part payment of whole agreement amount of $1500 was made to party No. 1 vide receipt No. 1203 dated 6.6.06 and that representative of opposite party No. 1 Mr. Parneet Singh had issued receipt under his signatures and that agreement has also been executed between him and opposite party No. 1 whereby opposite party No. 1 has assured that in case of rejection/non-acceptance of his application on any ground, it shall make refund of the amount. It admits that Demand Draft No. 004007 dated 12.6.06 was got issued from it for a sum of 1250 CAD @ Rs. 42.29. According to it, complainant is to prove that all the requisite documents were submitted by him to opposite party No. 1. So far as demand draft is concerned, it was legal and valid document as per banking rules and regulations. It denies that application of the complainant was rejected by Canadian Embassy vide letter dated 21.9.06 on the ground “Issuing branch name is required”. Perusal of letter dated 21.9.06 shows that application was returned calling upon the complainant to re-submit the same. Since complainant changed his mind to go Abroad, he did not resubmit the application. It denies that it did not mention proper name and address of the branch on the draft. Draft would have been honoured on presentation with the drawee bank. There is no need to mention the name of issuing branch specifically. In the words 0.36/BTI/1250 CAD @42.19/12-6-2006, term BTI refers to issuing branch i.e. Bathinda. Under the signatures of officials signing demand draft, bank code numbers are mentioned. Code as well as signatures are available with the drawee bank and as such it can easily know the name of the issuing branch. After issuing the demand draft, separate advice was sent immediately by the issuing branch to the drawee Bank i.e. Bank of Nova Scotia, Toranto for honouring the demand draft. Hence Canadian Embassy was nobody to return the demand draft on illegal and invalid terms. Had the demand draft been presented by Canadian Embassy to the Bank of Nova Scotia, it would have been honoured/encashed. Moreover, demand draft is issued only against value received and is always honoured. Another demand draft No. 004010 dated 22.8.06 for 1400 CAD was issued by it to another party and was handed over to Canadian Embassy. It was presented and encashed on 5.12.06. It denies that complainant has lost an opportunity to visit Canada as skilled worker and that his chances to go to Canada have diminished. Demand draft was got issued on 12.6.06. It was submitted to Canadian Embassy only in September, 2006. It was got cancelled on 5.12.06 after its return on 21.9.06. Complainant kept the draft with him for about 2-1/2 months and thereafter got it cancelled. If there was any requirement of Canadian Embassy for mentioning the name of issuing branch on the demand draft, the same could be presented to it and the name of the issuing branch could be got mentioned specifically. It denies that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 4934/- and that he is entitled to interest of Rs. 4500/-. Inter-alia its plea is that complainant has not suffered any loss due to its act and conduct. Financial loss has not been undergone by him to the tune of Rs. 47,000/-. It refutes remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complainant, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopy of demand draft (Ex. C-3), photocopy of letter dated 5.12.06 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of Pay Order (Ex. C-5), photocopy of letter dated 21.9.06 (Ex. C-6), photocopy of receipt form (Ex. C-7), photocopy of Contract for Immigration (Ex. C-8) and photocopy of E-Mail (Ex. C-9).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 1 affidavit of Sh. Parneet Singh (Ex. R-4), photocopy of notice (Ex. R-5), photocopy of letter dated 31.8.05 (Ex. R-6), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. R-7), photocopy of letter dated 10.5.06 and on behalf of opposite party No. 2 affidavit of Sh. Ashu Garg, Branch Manager (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Demand Draft (Ex. R-2) and photocopy of E. Mail (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 7. One of the objections taken by the opposite parties is that complaint is bad for non-joinder of ALAA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN and Canadian Embassy as they are necessary parties to it as while executing the contract for immigration consulting Services (INDP) , copy of which is Ex. C-8, complainant retained the services of ALLA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN and that the application of complainant was returned by the Canadian Embassy.<br /> 8. After giving our careful consideration to this aspect of the matter we do not feel ourselves inclined to agree with the opposite parties. A necessary party is a one without the addition of which matter cannot be finally and completely adjudicated upon. No relief has been sought by the complainant against ALLA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN. Complainant is the dominus lites of the case . He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not want to fight. Opposite party No. 1 is the agent of ALLA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN as has been admitted by it in the reply of the complaint. Complainant entered into contract through agent i.e. opposite party No. 1. Contract has been signed by Sh. Parneet Singh of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 has received Rs. 11,500/- from the complainant through receipt copy of which is Ex. C-7. Receipt has been signed by Sh. Parneet Singh. A perusal of the complaint reveals that whatever has been done concerning consultancy regarding the application of the complainant, has been done by opposite party No. 1. Application for immigration to Canada was to route through Canadian Embassy. If some objection has been raised by Embassy, this itself is no ground to conclude it is necessary party particularly in view of the averments in the complaint in which complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. In these circumstances, ALLA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN and Canadian Embassy may be proper parties and not necessary parties. Even if it is taken for arguments sake although we do not subscribe to it that they are necessary parties, non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties cannot be made a ground for dismissal of the complaint. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Smt. Savita Garg Vs. Director National Heart Institute 2004(2) CPC 675.<br /> 9. Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that complainant had availed the professional assistance of opposite party No. 1 for getting immigration. All the requisite documents as desired by it including demand draft No. 004007 dated 12.6.06 for a sum of 1250 CAD issued by opposite party No. 2 against Indian currency of Rs. 42.19 per $ were handed over to it. Application and other documents were sent by opposite party No. 1 to Canadian Embassy on 28.6.06 as is evident from the copy of the postal receipt. Application has been rejected the by Canadian Embassy vide letter dated 21.9.06, copy of which is Ex. C-6 on the ground that issuing branch name is required. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, application has been rejected. It was for the opposite party No. 1 to deal with the application properly and for opposite party No. 2 to mention its proper name and address on the draft itself. Opposite party No. 2 is deficient in services on account of the fact that it did not mention its address on the demand draft and opposite party No. 1 is deficient as it did not peruse the application and other documents including demand draft properly before sending the application and other documents to the Embassy. For the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 47,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. To support his arguments, he placed reliance on the authority P.C. Janardhanan Vs. Manager, Indian Bank & Ors. 1(1998) CPJ 149.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that material on record does not prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties at all.<br /> 11. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 12. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that complainant had availed the services of opposite party No. 1 which is Immigration consultants for immigration to Canada as per scheme of the Canadian Embassy. He paid Rs. 11,500/- to opposite party No. 1 as consultancy fee on 6.6.06. Demand draft of 1250 CAD was got prepared by him from opposite party No. 2 on 12.6.06 @ Rs. 42.29 per $. Application alongwith documents including demand draft was handed over to opposite party No. 1 which sent them to the Canadian Embassy on 28.6.06. Application alongwith demand draft was returned by High Commission of Canada vide letter dated 21.9.06 on the ground that it was incomplete as “Issuing branch name is required”. Complainant did not re-submit the application alongwith rectified draft or fresh draft. Rather he got the draft cancelled and encashed @Rs. 38.22 per $ totaling to Rs. 47,900/-.<br /> 13. As per contract copy of which is Ex. C-8 complainant understood and agreed that ALLA EL-DIN ABOU SHARBIN will :<br /> 1.Provide him with a detailed questionnaire to be completed by him as to assist him in determining whether his application to immigrate to Canada was reasonably likely to succeed.<br /> 2.Review the questionnaire answered by him.<br /> 3.Advise him of the appropriate category under which to bring his application.<br /> 4.Provide him with his written opinion as to the likelihood of his making a successful application to immigrate to Canada.<br /> 5.Assist and advise him in the completion of the formal applications for immigration.<br /> 6.Submit the application and all necessary supporting documents to the Canadian Embassy or Consulate or Quebec Immigration Authorities.<br /> 7.Handle on his behalf all communication with the Government of Canada and with any Government of a Province of Canada in relation to his application to immigrate to Canada and to represent to him all Government Authorities having an interest in his application.<br /> 8.Advise him of all developments in his application on a timely basis throughout the immigration process.<br /> 9.Retain the professional services of a lawer, if necessary.”<br /> He further agreed that he would :<br /> 1.Complete the Consultant's questionnaire either in English or Arbic by answering each and every question completely and truthfully.<br /> 2.Sign all documents required by the consultant including the formal application for immigration and any additional questionnaires or documents required by the government of Canada and the government of any province of Canada in relation to his application.<br /> 3.Provide to the Consultant all information and documentation requested by him in support of his application on the understanding that any such information and or documentation so provided was necessary or desirable for the promotion of his application and would be either forwarded to the Government of Canada or the Government of a Province of Canada or held in confidence by the consultant.<br /> 4.Meet with the consultant when required to do so and to answer all of the oral written questions they may ask to him in a complete and truthful manner.<br /> 5.Provide the consultant with the sufficient funds payable to the Government of Canada or to Quebec Government to cover the application for immigration fee (s) charged by the Government. The application fee (s) paid to the Government is (are) NON-REFUNDABLE.<br /> 6.Pay the fees charges by the consultant in the manner they direct. The total fee for immigration consulting services is ($1500 US FUNDS) , payable:<br /> a) $250 US (which is already paid) upon the signing of this contract.<br /> b) $250 US which has to be paid upon the receipt of the file number by Quebec Authorities of Federal Authorities.<br /> c) $750 US upon being informed that the application for immigration has been accepted by the Federal government at the interview time or been notified by letter from immigration authorities or by the receipt of the Medical Forms.<br /> d)$ 250 US, at the end of the process and been informed of the issuance of the PRC. <br /> 7.Refund Policy is reproduced as under :<br /> “1) In the event that the application for immigration is unsuccessful, the consultant will refund to the applicant the full amount already paid less administrative cost of :<br /> US$ 500.00<br /> 2) Before any refund is made the consultant should :<br /> a) Receive a letter from the Embassy explaining the reason of rejection from the immigration Authorities.<br /> b) Take the appropriate actions deemed necessary to have the client's application reviewed by the Immigration Authorities, or requires no further action.” <br /> What was further understood and agreed by the complainant is reproduced as under :<br /> “I understand and agree that the consultant will use his best skill, knowledge and judgment while acting on my behalf in connection with my making an application to immigrate to Canada but that there is no representation by the Consultant, either oral or written, either express or implied, guaranteeing that my application will be successful.<br /> I further understand and agree that the acceptance of rejection of my application to immigrate to Canada is determined solely by Government of Canada based upon the law of Canada prevailing immigration policy of the Government of Canada and the particular facts of an circumstances of each application to immigrate to Canada.”<br /> 14. Complainant has attempted to set up the case that his application has been rejected as is evident from paras No. 3,6 and 8 of the complaint. Bone of contention is the letter dated 21.9.06, copy of which is Ex. C-6. It reveals that application was not rejected. According to it, it was incomplete. He was directed that he may resubmit the same with information/documents. Reason for sending the application is “Issuing branch name is required”. In other words, the name of the issuing branch which issued the draft was sought by High Commission of Canada. It is not the case of any of the parties that prima-facie bank draft was illegal, invalid, null and void. In such like other case demand draft, copy of which is Ex. R-2 ,was issued by opposite party No. 2 and it was encashed by the drawee bank i.e. Bank of Nova Scotia as is evident from Ex. R-3. In this case, drawer of the draft is opposite party No. 2 and drawee the same bank i.e. Bank of Nova Scotia. As per Ex. C-5 amount was payable to The Receiver General for Canada. A perusal of Ex. C-5 shows that branch name has been mentioned as BTI means Bathinda. Under the signatures of the officials who signed the draft, code numbers have been given as B-3145 and B-3210. As per Ex. C-6 , some objections have been recorded in the printed form by High Commission of Canada. One of these objections is that “Bank draft/certified cheque could not be realised and was returned to us for reason no.....mentioned on the memorandum presented by your respective bank”. It is not the case that drawee bank raised any objection that name of issuing branch is not on the draft and on that account it cannot be enchashed. Intermediary could not decided validity and legality of the draft. High Commission of Canada Suo-moto took the objection regarding Ex. C-6 which is not one of the objection recorded in printed letter. In these circumstances, when High Commission of Canada was neither drawer nor drawee, it was incompetent to raise objection as has been taken in the letter dated 21.9.06. Return of the application alongwith draft and other documents is nothing but arbitrary. In the case of Malik Barkat Ali Vs. Central Board, Imperial Bank of India, Calcutta through Imperial Bank of India, Lahore and another AIR(32) 1945 Lahore 213, it was held that ordinarily a bank issuing draft cannot refuse to pay the amount thereof unless there was some doubt as to the identity of the person presenting it as being or properly representing the person in whose favour it was drawn, or in other words, unless there is reasonable ground for disputing the title of the person presenting the draft. Similar view has been held in the case of Tukaram Bapuji Nkam Vs. The Belgaum Bank Limited AIR 1976 Bombay 185. As mentioned above, there is no objection from the drawee bank on the ground that issuing branch name has not been mentioned in the draft and on that account it cannot be encashed. Draft is apparently legal and valid. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that payment of such draft issued by this branch of the bank i.e. opposite party No. 2 has already been encashed by the bank of Nova Scotia in another case. In such a situation, it is difficult to hold that opposite party No. 1 did not deal with the application properly and that opposite party No. 2 is deficient in rendering services.<br /> 15. As discussed above, application of the complainant was not rejected. He was not declared unsuccessful through letter dated 21.9.06, copy of which Ex. C-6. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that in case the complainant would have resubmitted the application then his application would have been treated as a fresh one in view of the notice regarding Simplified Application Process, copy of which is Ex. R-5, is not tenable. There is nothing to this effect in the letter dated 21.9.06. High Commission of Canada gave direction that complainant may resubmit the application. It means that re-submission of the application was in continuation of his application which was returned with letter dated 21.9.06. According to Ex. R-5 Simplified Application Process was introduced w.e.f. 1.9.06. This was to apply to the applicants who applied on or after 1.9.06. There is nothing in Ex. C-6 that new application as per Simplified Procedure was required. Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that Visa was not to be issued to the complainant immediately. After receipt of application, only file was to be created with number as is clear from Ex. R-6. Ex. R-6 pertains to application dated 18.7.05 of another person. It was made clear by High Commission of Canada that they were assessing applications received approximately 42 months ago. It was further made clear by them that they cannot guarantee that they would be able to complete the initial screening within 42 months. In such a situation, complainant could not expect that with the presentation of application to the High Commission of Canada, he could get Visa for permanent residence. Complainant has not mentioned the date of receipt of the application alongwith documents including demand draft vide covering letter, copy of which is Ex. C-6. Application was sent to the High Commission by opposite party No. 1 on 28.6.06. It was kept by it alongwith demand draft etc., and returned it only on 21.9.06. Draft was prepared on 12.6.06. Hence, High Commission kept it for more than three months. After the receipt of the demand draft and the application, complainant did not take the trouble to get the name of the issuing bank recorded on the draft for resubmission of the application through opposite party No. 1. There is no material to conclude that he ever applied for re-validation of the demand draft or for its rectification as per objection raised by High Commission of Canada with the request that he was to re-submit the application. On one fine day i.e. 5.12.06, he moved application copy of which is Ex. C-4 to the Branch Manager of opposite party No. 2 for getting the demand draft cancelled. From this, only inference is that he changed his mind for immigration to Canada. Had his intention been for immigration to Canada, he would have re-submitted the application after getting the needful done which could be a matter of few minutes. In such a situation, opposite parties cannot be blamed.<br /> 16. With utmost regard and humility to the authority P.C. Janardhanan Vs. Manager Indian Bank & Ors (supra), the same is distinguishable on facts. In that case demand draft was taken by complainant to Bombay and was handed over to his brother who had further given the same to the Central Bank of India from where it was not encashed and the reason stated was that code number and name of the issuing branch were not mentioned, whereas in this case, there is no objection of the drawee bank that draft cannot be encashed on account of the fact that it does not bear the name of the issuing branch.<br /> 17. In Ex. C-8 refund policy has been explained. Refund of full amount already paid less administrative cost of US$ 500.00 is permissible if application for immigration is unsuccessful. In this case complainant paid consultancy fee to the extent of 250 $. Another condition is that before any refund is made the consultant should receive a letter from the Embassy explaining the reason of rejection from the Immigration Authorities. In this case, there is no rejection of the application of the complainant. Consultant could take appropriate action deemed necessary to have the client's application reviewed by the Immigration Authorities. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that complainant did not re-submit the application to opposite party No. 1 for reviewing the same by Immigration Authorities. Moreover as per understanding, complainant had agreed that there is no representation by the consultant, either oral or written, either express or implied, guaranteeing that application would be successful. Liability of the consultant was to arise only when the application was rejected or complainant was declared unsuccessful. In this case, neither application was rejected nor complainant was declared unsuccessful.<br /> 18. In view of our foregoing discussion, crux of the matter is that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, complainant is not entitled to recover any amount from them. Complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 14-06-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />