JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties present. The complainant, Manpreet Singh, applied for Business Visa to go to Czech Republic (Europe) for business purposes on 29.9.2008 and he paid the requisite amount of Rs.40,000/- on the same very day. The opposite party also demanded a sum of 5200 Dollars. The father of the complainant paid Rs. 2,71,900/- on 2.12.2008 equivalent to $5200. It was agreed that the complainant would pay total amount of $10400 on 2.12.2008. Thereafter, he signified his willingness to withdraw the money and cancelled his programme for going to Czech. When he claimed the money back, the petitioner refused to pay the money back. Consequently, he filed an application for refund of his money before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant on his own accord had withdrawn from this venture. He invited our attention towards Complainant’s letter dated 25.8.2009 which is reproduced hereunder: “To The Manager, WWICS Jalandahr Branch Subject:Refund application Manpreet Singh#50963 Dear Sir, With reference to the above, I had applied for Czech Republic (Business category) due to your slow process and some of my personal reasons I want to quit my case and please refund my funds. Thanking you, Manpreet Singh 25.8.09 Client has been repeatedly counseled to not withdraw case but is adamant to do. As per policy as the Company (LIC) has been registered the client is not eligible for refund but it is recommended to refund a minimum amount as there are chances to convert the case for Canada. Amand Datta. It is explained that the petitioner is not liable for any deficiency. 3. Second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the duties of the company are specified, which are reproduced as hereunder: “1. Duties of the Company In consultation with its facilitator in Europe, the Company shall provide the following services. a) Advise the client about social, economic, business environment in the Europe. b) Assist client to prepare viable project report for the business he/she intends to start in the respective country c) Advise about the respective country’s business environment d) Assess the client’s business experiences for permanent residence/visa of immigrating e) Preparation and signing documents for establishing a company f) Providing juridical address for the company. g) Registering a company in trade court of respective country of Europe. h) Registering a company in tax office i) All notification and court fess in respective country j) All transaction and legalization fees in respective country. 4. It was argued that both the fora have wrongly interpreted the duties. Both the foras have not mentioned about the same. 5. We find it extremely difficult to countenance these contentions. It must be borne in mind that company like the petitioner, visa should have been processed within a month or two. They have set up a fragile excuse. They have no explanation as to why the matter was delayed for about a year. A person is not supposed to wait for business visa for a year. There could be some other circumstances, which may lead the customer to change his mind because of the prevailing circumstances regarding that business. People/customers get exasperated by senseless delay. The petitioner acted like a fish which needed a cycle. No explanation for delay is forthcoming. There was so much delay. There could be some personal reasons as well, when there is so much delay. 6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not take the money but the money was taken by another company i.e Global Strategic Business Consultancy (hereinafter referred as ‘GSBC’). The money was paid through the petitioner. The petitioner had received the money on behalf of GSBC. The complainant has not availed the services of the petitioner or GSBC. They cannot keep his money. The money has to be paid back. It is difficult to fathom why so much money was charged from the petitioner for pursuing the business visa only. Why so much money was paid. It is surprising to note that the complainant had to pay the dollars before leaving the country. They received the money and provided no service. It is incumbent upon them to pay back the money with interest. 7. The revision petition has no force, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
