STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Kirandeep Kaur daughter of Sh. Amrik Singh resident of H. No.1444, Sector 61, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Angad Info Overseas Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.483-484, 1st floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Executive Director Sh. Rajbir Singh.

                                                ……Respondent/Opposite Party

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Rajinder Singh Raj, Adv. for the appellant.

                   Sh. PIP Singh, Adv. for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.9.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.

2.                      The facts, in brief, are that the complainant approached the OP for getting visa for Australia under class VF, Subclass 475 skilled Regional sponsored and submitted requisite documents along with experience. A Retainer Agreement was executed between the complainant and OP on 11.7.2008 as per which OP promised to obtain the visa, and thereafter, send her to Australia, within a period of 8 months. She deposited Rs.25,000.00 on 11.7.2008 and Rs.59,000.00 on 21.8.2008 and deposited amount AUD 2500.00 as TAFE SA fee. She, on the demand of the OP, also paid Rs.6,000.00 for change of occupation list and  AUD 2105/- as visa fee. Apart from this she also spent Rs.2950.00 and 14,400/- towards various medical tests and for the course of IELTS respectively.  It was alleged by the complainant that her visa application was rejected by the Australian Government vide order dated 25.5.2010, due to misrepresentation of the OP, on the ground that she was employed as an Advocate and not as a Public Relations officer.  She alleged that the OP changed her profession from an Advocate to a Public Relations Officer without her consent due to which her visa was rejected. She further alleged that the OP did not refund the full amounts deposited by her on demand. Ultimately she served a legal notice dated 29.10.2010 on the OP but to no avail.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                      In its reply the OP admitted that the Retainership Agreement dated 11.7.2008 was executed between the parties and that the complainant herself chose and opted to apply for immigration to Australia in the occupation of Business and Information Professionals but in September, 2008, she requested the OP to change her preferred occupation to Public Relation Officer and paid Rs.6000/-, due to change of occupation, for getting herself reassessed for the occupation of Public Relation Officer.  It was averred that the Australian Government rejected the case of complainant after verifying the antecedents and other facts provided by the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 

8.                      The contention of the complainant/appellant in para 8 of the complaint is that the OP changed her profession from an advocate to a Public Relations Officer, without her consent or knowledge.  According to her, she submitted the experience certificate from late Shri Romesh Chander Sharma as an Advocate whereas the OP had applied for visa for her as a Public Relations Officer. She did not attach any such copy of the certificate which she claims to have obtained from Shri Romesh Chander Sharma. The OP denied if any such certificate, showing her as an Advocate was submitted.  It is true that an experience certificate was sent  to the Australian Embassy and it finds mention in their report (Annexure C-8) which reads as follows :-

“On the application you claim to have been employed by Romesh Chander Sharma from May 2007 to 29^th June 2009, skilled as a Public Relations Officer. 

An employment reference submitted with the application from Romesh Chander Sharma dated 5^th August 2009 and signed by the Advocate, which states the same details as described above.  Also on the reference your duties were described in detail in the performance of those duties.”

On the next page, when her application was examined regarding 476.211, again the above mentioned facts have been reiterated. It, therefore, shows that the contention of the complainant is totally false that she ever submitted a certificate that she was working as an Advocate.  In fact, she has submitted the certificate of late Shri Romesh Chander Sharma showing that she had worked as a Public Relations Officer.

9.                      The complainant entered into a Retainer Agreement with the OP, copy of which is Annexure R-1.  In this agreement, she nowhere disclosed if she was working as an Advocate.  She has, however, mentioned in the replication that while mentioning her email address, she has mentioned herself as an Advocate as follows : kiran_advocate7@yahoo.co.in.  This contention of the complainant is also wrong.  A perusal of Annexure R-1 shows that her email address is kiran_adv2007@yahoo.co.in.  “Adv” can be taken to mean anything from advertisement to adversary.  However, even if she meant by it as an Advocate, the email address is not the proof of profession.  People do select any words, digits or alphabets to complete their email addresses which may not have anything to do with their profession. Email addresses can even be fake or false.  Certainly in the Retainer Agreement she neither signed as an Advocate nor anywhere mentioned her profession as an Advocate.  It, therefore, cannot be said if she ever disclosed her profession as an Advocate.

10.                  As regards the contention that the profession was changed to Public Relations officer, without her consent or knowledge, that also is a white lie.  She admitted in para 5 of her complaint that she paid Rs.6,000/- for the change in the occupation list.  She is not an illiterate person who could be duped or from whom the amount could be extracted on the pretext of change in the occupation list.  Rather the contention of the OP is that she was there at the computer when her online application was being submitted and she voluntarily agreed for the change in the occupation to Public Relations Officer.  The deposit of the amount, therefore, connotes implied consent for change of occupation and her contention in this respect is also totally incorrect.

11.                  Prior to this change, she projected herself as a  Business and Information Professional (and not as an Advocate).  The skilled migration assessment, for the said occupation, was obtained by the OP vide Annexure R-2.  It was thereafter that the occupation was changed to Public Relations Officer regarding which the OP again obtained the Skilled Migration Assessment vide Annexure R-3.  In this manner, even if the change of occupation had not been there, her assessment could have been as Business and Information Professional, but not as an Advocate. She, therefore, could not succeed for migration even under that category. 

12.                  The OP have mentioned in para 8 of the reply that there is no category of an Advocate in the list of occupation allowed for immigration by the Australian Govt.  The complainant has not produced any such document to contradict the same. The contention of the OP appears to be correct that since the complainant was desperate to migrate to Australia and when she found that she cannot migrate, as an Advocate, she chose initially the occupation of Business and Information Professional and when she found that her chances were bleak, the occupation was changed to Public Relations Officer.  When an officer from the Australian High Commission, New Delhi visited the site to verify the applicant’s employment and spoke to the fellow work colleagues (as mentioned in Annexure C-8 and R-5), they told that the applicant was employed as an Advocate and not as a Public Relations Officer. It is further recorded that the applicant when arrived also agreed that her role was that of an Advocate and she rather asked the officers if anything else could be done to get the visa.  It is the extent of her eagerness to get visa for which she could adopt other means also.  Not disclosing to the OP that she was an Advocate and presenting herself as a Public Relations Officer was, therefore, the creation of the mind of the complainant herself.  If the visa was declined due to the falsity of her statement, the OP cannot be penalized for that.  The visa was rejected not due to any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

13.                  It is an admitted fact that the case of the complainant was first assessed as Business and Information Professional and thereafter as Public Relations Officer. The application was sent to the High Commission as required. The amounts needed for the processing of the same were duly deposited within time. The complainant was afforded every assistance needed for processing of her claim.  If, even in spite of that, the Australian authorities rejected the visa, on the ground that the information furnished by her was not correct, it is not the fault of the OP, but that of the complainant herself that she failed to get the immigration visa.

14.                  The OP claim to have spent a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the re-assessment of qualifications out of the fee charged by them. Even in spite of that, the OP have refunded the amount of Rs.29,500/- out of their fees and a sum equivalent to Australian dollar 2500, received from the Australian Govt.  However, the amount of Rs.6,000/-, which was spent for the re-assessment after the change of occupation or Australian dollar 2105, deposited as visa fee, and the amount of Rs.14,400/- and Rs.2,950/- spent by her on IELTS examination and medical tests, which were never paid to the OP/respondent, could not be ordered to be refunded by them.  We are of the opinion that the complainant was not entitled to the refund of any other amount.

15.                  In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and her complaint was rightly dismissed by the ld. District Forum.  The impugned order is perfectly legal and valid and we concur with the same.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

30^th January, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER