DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Karanbir Kaur daughter of Sh. Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Shahpur Afgana, P.O. Narrhu, Tehsil Rajpur, District Patiala (Punjab), now a resident of H.No.5297-A, Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

Vs

[1]  M/s Educity Immigration Consultants Pvt. Limited, SCO No. 93, 2^nd Floor, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

[2]  M/s Gold Consultants Pvt. Limited, SCO No. 309-10, Level 2, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

[3]  Amit Malhotra, C/o M/s Gold Consultants Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 309-10, Level 2, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Harsh Garg, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Kumar Nikshep, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.          The instant complaint relates to alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties for their inability to send the Complainant to Australia.

          Factually speaking, in response to an advertisement in the newspaper, the Complainant had hired the services of Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 through Opposite Party No. 3 for study in Australia. The Complainant had completed her 10+2 Examination (Non-Medical) in April, 2009 and had also taken her IELTS test obtaining 6.0 bands in November, 2009. The Complainant has stated that she was apprised by the Opposite Parties that she would be admitted in a good course in Australia with bright future prospects. The Opposite Party No.1 had demanded Rs.20,000/- towards consultation charges which were refundable subject to the decision of the visa application. This amount was to be paid in advance after which the Complainant was provided offer/ acceptance letter from the college in Australia. Thereafter, the visa application of the Complainant was filed with the Australian High Commission by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant was also informed that once the visa was accepted by the Australian High Commission, she would be required to pay the tuition fee of the college in addition to consultancy fee of Rs.20,000/-. The Complainant was also required to bear all the incidental charges of visa fee. The Complainant has stated that she was also asked to show a bank balance of around Rs.15,00,000/- in her bank account. After discussing the matter with her family, the Complainant engaged the services of the Opposite Party No.1 and paid a fee of Rs.20,000/- on 18.06.2011 (Receipt Annexure C-2). However, no receipt in lieu of the other charges was issued. The Complainant was informed on 22.6.2011 that offer and acceptance letter from the college in Australia had been received and she had been admitted in two courses for a duration of 28 weeks each by the names of Diploma of Business; & Certificate IV in Business in a College through Australian Institute of Technology & Education (offer letter Annexure C-3). After getting the acceptance letter from the College, the Complainant was told to pay Rs.30,000/- in lieu of the visa applicable. These charges were paid on 26.06.2011. Thereafter, the Complainant kept requesting the Opposite Parties to file her visa application, but the Opposite Parties kept delaying the matter. The visa application of the Complainant was finally filed by the Opposite Parties on 08.09.2011. Thereafter, the Complainant was sent a questionnaire by the Opposite Parties advising her to prepare for the interview before the Australian High Commission. The Complainant has maintained that only questions were sent and no answers were provided (Annexure C-4).

          The Complainant was telephonically interviewed by the High Commission Authorities on 24.10.2011, where she was asked various questions about her study course, college and future prospects. The Complainant was also questioned about the reason for changing her college. As the Complainant was completely unaware about this development, she preferred to keep mum on the point. After the interview the Complainant inquired about the fact of changing the college from Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 informed her that the College had been changed on 21.10.2011, as the earlier College was blacklisted by the Australian Government for enrolling international students. A new offer and acceptance letter was forwarded to the Complainant on 22.10.2011 by e-mail. This news was a shock to the Complainant. The Complainant down loaded the new offer letter from her e-mail account. In the meantime, the visa application of the Complainant was rejected by the Australian High Commission on 25.10.2011 giving the reason that during the interview she was able to provide very limited information regarding her proposed study in Australia (Refusal letter Annexure C-6). As the visa application of the Complainant has been rejected, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint with a prayer that Opposite Parties be directed to refund Rs.20,000/- paid as consultation charges, Rs.30,000/- towards embassy fee, besides interest and compensation.   

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          The Opposite Parties in their joint reply have admitted that the Complainant had hired their services for going to Australia. Opposite Parties have stated that the Complainant took the details and necessary information about the courses from the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties never told the Complainant that she can also apply for her permanent immigration after completing her studies. The fee paid by the Complainant was non-refundable as the Opposite Parties have performed their duties to the best of their ability.  With the efforts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was granted admission in an Institute in Australia after which her visa application was filed before the Australian High Commission. The Australian High Commission rejected the visa of the Complainant u/s 65 of the Migration Act, 1958 read with Section 500A of the Act. No assurance was ever given to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties for grant of the visa. Since Opposite Parties have discharged their duties qua the Complainant, so the question of refunding the consultation fee does not arise. In reply to the allegations of the Complainant about delay in filing visa application, Opposite Parties have pleaded that the Complainant had registered with Opposite Party No.1 in June, 2011. But for submission of her file for the grant of visa before the Australian High Commission, the Opposite Parties required certain documents. Only after the fund documents and gap document from June, 2009 to November 2009 were provided by the Complainant (Annexure R-2) was her application for grant of visa filed before the Australian High Commission.

          The Opposite Parties have also denied that the Complainant was unaware about the change of her college. In fact, the college had been changed because the initial college in which the Complainant was got admitted has been blacklisted by the Australian Government. This fact was informed to the Complainant the same day (Annexure R-3).

          The visa application of the Complainant has been rejected by the Australian Government in terms of the Migration Act (Annexure R-7 to R-9). Denying all other contentions of the Complainant, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.  

4.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.          The case of the Complainant is that despite paying for consultancy and visa fee and providing all relevant documents the Opposite Parties have not been able to arrange to send the Complainant for study to Australia. The Opposite Parties in reply have maintained that adequate consultancy was provided to the Complainant and her visa application was prepared. The Complainant was rejected only after her interview was conducted by the Australian High Commission. The relevant portion of the refusal letter from the Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship at Annexure R/7 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“I wish to advise you that your application for this visa has been refused. After careful consideration of all the information you have provided, I was not satisfied that you met the relevant criteria for the grant of this visa as set out in Australian migration law.

Your application was refused because you did not satisfy regulation 572.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994 as described below.” 

          Regulation 572.233 relates to the satisfaction of the Minister that the Applicant is genuine, has a high assessment level and also has the required financial capacity & funds as per the requirements. The application of the Complainant was refused because she did not satisfy the Australian Government with regard to her academic record, links with Australia, and intentions. Also her study plans were found to be inappropriate and the documents/ statements seemed fraudulent. During the interview, the Australian Immigration Department found that the Complainant was able to provide only limited information about her proposed study in Australia and hence, her application was not found to be genuine. The relevant extract of the letter reads as under:-

“As I am not satisfied that you meet the requirements of grant of a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, this application must be refused under Section 65 of the Migration Act. Please note that this decision is final and there is no right of review. There is no refund of the visa application charge.”

7.          Looking at the complete contents of the letter at Annexure R-7, it is apparent that the Complainant has not been able to impress the Australian Immigration Department about the genuineness of her case during her interview as she did not seem to have proper knowledge about the course of her proposed study. Also, no personal research had been undertaken by the Complainant for the said study, due to which the genuineness of her application has been found to be doubtful.

          If a person wishes to study in a foreign country, the least expectation of the visa officer interviewing the Applicant would be that the person has knowledge of the course of study to be pursued and is able to answer the questions to the satisfaction of the interviewing officer. The Complainant has herself stated that she was not able to give the relevant information. Change of college would not be a ground as the course of study would remain the same. It is thus obvious that the visa application has been rejected due to the inadequacy of the Complainant herself.  

8.          Appreciating the situation, and going through the detailed rejection letter at Annexure R-7, we do not think that it is the Opposite Parties who are deficient in any way. The visa application of the Complainant has been filed by the Opposite Parties, which has not been found to be inadequate or defective by the Australian Visa Officer. The visa fees paid as already given above is non-refundable. In this situation, we cannot hold the Opposite Parties liable to either refund the visa application fee or the payment received from the Complainant for the consultation. We accordingly dismiss the complaint as we find no merit in the same. The other claims by the Complainant are accordingly also rejected.

9.          Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28^th February, 2013.                                                 

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”