By: Smt.  R.K.Madanavally, Member        
    Brief facts:-

    The complainant is a computer Engineer.   The opposite party No.2 had advertised as a one stop shop for immigration purpose and arranging Visa and emigration for overseas courses  and connected jobs.
They had advertised themselves as the largest and most successful visa consultancies attached to USA,   Australian, Philippians and pretended themselves as a complete online visa solution provider.

    As attracted by the advertisement, the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 and they assured to arrange the Australian immigration without any failure and promised to arrange permanent visa along with an attractive job.   By believing the above words, the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 at his office at New Delhi and submitted all documents on 6/3/13.   After perusal of the documents, the opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that he is eligible for Australian immigration with a permanent visa coupled with a job.

    Thereafter the opposite party No.2 directed the complainant to pay Rs.1,36,000/- as process fee and had given facility for the same in installments.   Thereafter the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to opposite party No.2.   Thereafter in 2013 March the complainant had paid rupees 20,000/-  to opposite party No.2 and on 23/4/13 he had paid 24000/- also.  In addition to that he was directed to pay Rs.30000/- to the Australian computer Society for immigration process.   Thus a total amount of Rs.94000/- was paid by the complainant.   Opposite party No.2 had promised the complainant that if any problem arises in future, they would refund the entire amount to the complainant  with out any delay.

    Thereafter several requests were made by the complainant with respect to the documents.   At last, it was informed by the opposite parties that the application of the complainant was rejected due to the reason that his qualification was not recognized one.   Thereafter several times the complainant demanded to refund the amounts.  But the opposite parties were not ready for the same and hence caused this complaint

    Opposite party No.1 filed version.   Opposite party No.2 set exparte.   The opposite party No.1 had denied all the allegations put forwarded against them.   They have no connection with the complainant and so they are an unnecessary party in the proceedings.   The complainant had made the cash depposits  to the opposite party No.2 through the Manjeri branch of opposite party No.1 and they had creditted the same to the account of opposite party No.2.   There is no cause of action arose against opposite party No.1 and no deficiency is committed by them.   So the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.

    Now the points arises for our consideration here in are;

          (1) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service?
Relief and cost.

Point No.1
    The complainant filed Chief Affidavit and Ext.A1 to A4 documents are marked.   Ext. A1 is the Visa simply order of opposite party No.2 dated 25/11/13,   Ext. A2 is the visa simply introduction email, dated 1/6/12.  Ext. A3 is the depposite receipt of Rs.24000/- dated 23/4/13 and Ext. A4 is the payment receipt of Rs.20000/- dated 6/3/2013.
    
    The counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that they are not filing the counter affidavit  since there is no specific pleading against them  and no relief is also sought against them.  Heard the complainant and perused the records..   Since there is no contra evidence, the case of the complainant has been prooved and in the light of the available records, we find no reason to grant an order against the opposite party No.1 since they are an unnecessary party in the above complaint.    No relief is sought against them by the complainant and hence we are exonerated the opposite party No.1.   As the opposite party No.2  was not ready to refund the amount, they have committed gross deficiency in service.

    The publication of misleading advertisements by opposite party No.2 amounts to unfair trade practice and opposite party No.2 is liable to compensate the complainant.

    The 1st point is answered accordingly.

    Point No.2 
    In view of the above discussion and findings, we are allowing the complaint and passing the following orders.

    The opposite party No.2 shall pay Rs.94000/-/- to the complainant, being the amount received by them along with a compensation of Rs.2,00000/- (2 lakhs only) for the mental agony suffered by him and a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

    This order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest upon the said amount from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. 

    Dated  this 31st day  of  August,  2016.

                                    A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
 
 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                             

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant        :   Nil
Documents marked on the side of  the complainant        :   Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1               Order
Ext.A2           :  Visas simply introduction email      
Ext A3       :   Depposit slip
ExtA4           :   Payment receipt issued by the opposite party No.2.    
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party      :   Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party    :    Nil

                                                    
                                    A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
 

 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                             

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER