1. The present Revision Petitions Nos.1020 and 1021 of 2022 have been filed under Section 58 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘the Act’) against the orders dated 08.06.2022 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (the ‘State Commission’) in FA No.783/2015 and FA No. 810/2015 respectively wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal No.783/2015 and partly allowed the Appeal No. 810 of 2015. In turn, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (‘District Forum’) vide order dated 21.04.2015 partly allowed the Complaint. 2. For convenience, the parties involved in the case are referred to as per the Complaint before the District Forum. "WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd." is the Petitioners/OPs and "Mrs. Parul K. Adhvaryu & Anr.” is denoted as the Respondents/Complainants. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants, are that they contacted the OPs immigration service on 03.10.2006, opted for the "Special Spot Payment Plan" (Gold Package) and paid Rs. 68,632, which included Rs. 22,000 as Canada Immigration Advance Visa Fees. OP assured that legal procedures would be completed within a year, visa would be obtained shortly and residence and employment facilities in Canada would be provided. The Forms were submitted and forwarded to the High Commission of Canada on 14.11.2006 vide File No. 38601. OP later informed the process would take 48-54 months, but assured completion within a year. They cleared IELTS in 2007, incurring Rs.7,200 for exam fees and Rs. 5,000 for coaching classes. In 2013, OP informed that the Canadian Govt rejected the Permanent Residency (PR) application. When OPs demanded US $700 for legal procedures, they refused. They received refund of Rs. 31,893 as visa fees on 24.10.2013. Being dissatisfied, they filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the remaining Rs. 68,632, with 12% interest from 13.12.2006, compensation of Rs. 15,000 for mental agony and Rs. 10,000 towards legal costs. 4. In reply before the District Forum, the OPs contended that the services were rendered as per agreement. The visa file was submitted to the High Commission of Canada and Rs. 22,000 was deposited as visa fees. Visa fees of Rs. 31,893/- was refunded with interest to the complainants. Visa denial in the case of the Complainants was due to changes in the Canadian Govt's visa policy. OPs claimed no liability for policy changes or resulting rejection. As the visa was not granted, the Complainants are not entitled to a full refund. Refund of additional fees denied as significant effort was invested by the OP in processing of the visa Application. 5. The learned District Forum vide order dated 21.04.2015 partly allowed the complaint with the following directions: “ORDER - The complaint of the complainant has been granted.
- Order to opponent that pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with the 9% annual interest since dtd. 13-12-06 till start to pay to the complainant. AND
- Order that opponent pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) to the complainant for mentally harassment, shock, claim and also pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) ” as a expense to file the complaint to the complainant.”
(Extracted from translated copy) 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, Appeal No.783 of 2015 was filed by the OPs and Complainants filed Appeal No.810/2015. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 08.06.2022, passed the following order: “ORDER APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2015 1 The Appeal No. 810/2015 is partly allowed and order passed by learned District Commission, Ahmedabad (Add) in C.C. no. 409/2014 on date 21.04.2015 is modified. 2. In the order of learned District Commission, Ahmedabad (Add) in- C.C. no. 409/2014 on date 21.04.2015, Serial number 02 of the final order is modified as under: "Opponent Immigration Company is hereby directed to pay Rs. 68,632/- [Rupees Sixty eight thousand six hundred and thirty two only) and her IELTS examination fees of Rs. 12,200/- [Rupees Twelve thousand and two hundred only] i.e. total amount of Rs.80,832/ [Rupees eighty thousand eight hundred and thirty two only) to the complainant with 6% interest from the date of 13.12.2006 till its realization." 3. The rest of the order passed by the learned District Commission Ahmedabad (Add) is hereby confirmed. - Opponent shall comply with this order within 60 days from the date of this order.
5. No order as to cost. 6. Registry is hereby instructed to send a copy of this order in PDF format by E-mail to learned District Commission (Add) for necessary action. 7. Office in directed to forward a free of cost certified judgment and order to the respective parties. ORDER APPEAL NO. 783/2015 1. The present Appeal no. 783/2015 is hereby dismissed 2. The judgment and order passed by learned District Commission Ahmedabad (Add) in C.C. no. 409/2014 dated 21.04.2015 is hereby confirmed in view of the above modification in Appeal No. 810/2015. 3. The opponent is hereby ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the original complainant as cost of the Appeal and shall bear its own cost if any 4. Opponent shall comply with this order within 60 days from the date of this order. 5. Appellant is directed to apply to the Account Department of the State Commission with all details of Appeal No. 783/2015, Xerox copy of the receipt to withdraw the amount deposited in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt. 6. Registry is hereby instructed to send a copy of this order in PDF format by E-mail to learned District Commission Ahmedabad (Add) for taking necessary action. 7. Office is directed to place the copy of this judgment in both the Appeal No. 810/2015 and Appeal No. 783/2015. 8. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this judgment and order to the respective parties.” 7. Hence, the present Revision Petitions by the OPs. 8. In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioners/OPs reiterated the grounds taken in the present Revision Petitions and reply filed before the District Forum and asserted that all due diligence was followed as per contract of engagement, including filing the application with the High Commission of Canada and paying the advance visa fees. He further contended that the rejection of the visa application was due to changes in Canada's immigration policies, which are beyond the control of the OPs. He argued that the Petitioners/OPs refunded the visa fees of ₹31,893/- to the complainant in 2013, which should suffice to absolve them of any liability. He sought to allow the present Revision Petitions, set aside the impugned orders passed by the Fora below and dismiss the complaint. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Complainants/ Respondents reiterated the issues raised in the Complaint. He argued in favour of the impugned orders passed by the Fora below. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petitions with costs. 10. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels of both the parties. 11. The matter concerns allegations of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by an immigration consultancy firm (OPs). The Complainant sought reimbursement of ₹68,632/- along with interest and compensation due to the alleged failure of the OPs to fulfil promises regarding obtaining a PR visa for Canada. In this regard, it is undisputed that Complainants availed the OPs Gold Package and paid ₹68,632/- in total for immigration services, including ₹22,000/- as an advance visa fee for Canada. While the OPs allegedly assured that the visa process would be completed within a year, after years of waiting and incurring further expenses of ₹12,500/- on IELTS exams, the Complainant was informed in 2013 that the PR visa application was rejected. They claimed that the OP kept assuring refund of full amount but returned only ₹31,893/- and refused to pay the remaining amount. The OPs asserted that all due diligence was followed, including filing the application with the High Commission of Canada and paying the advance visa fees. The visa rejection was due to changes in Canada's immigration policies, which are beyond OPs control. OPs refunded the visa fees of ₹31,893/- to the complainant in 2013, which should suffice to absolve them of any liability. However, in terms of Clause 8 of Contract of Engagement entered into between the parties dated 30.09.2006, the OPs undertook to provide the full refund to the Client of the fees paid to the OP in the event of the Visa Officer rejecting the application and the OPs are unable to revert such decision. Undisputedly the visa application of the complainant was rejected. However, while OPs refunded ₹31,893/- as visa fees paid to the High Commission of Canada this refund does not cover the service fee of ₹68,632/- paid by the complainant, which the OP failed to justify. While the visa rejection due to certain policy changes may not be OPs fault directly, lack of proper guidance and unsustainable assurances about timelines reinforce their liability for deficiency in service to that extent as determined by the State Commission. 12. It is well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the State Commission order, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. 13. In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:- “9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....” 14. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. 15. Based on the above deliberations and precedents, I do not find merit in both Revision Petitions Nos.1020 and 1021 of 2022 and the same are, therefore, dismissed. 16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. | 
