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

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

Harpreet Kaur D/o Sh. Manjinder Singh, resident of House No. B-XXIX – 1706/573, St. No.12, Preet Nagar, Chimny Road, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

                                                        ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    M/s Foreign Horizons (A unit of T & A Overseas Consultant Pvt. Limited), SCO No. 126-127, Basement, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/ Managing Director/ Authorized Representative.

[2]    Mr. Navdeep Bal, General Manager. {Deleted vide order dated 9.9.2011}

[3]    Mr. Arvind Ashat, Director.

[4]    Miss Shikha, Authorized Representative. {Deleted vide order dated 9.9.2011}

[5]    Ms. Roopinder Kaur Sivaia, Authorized representative. {Deleted vide order dated 9.9.2011}

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA               PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Harish Sharma, Adv. for Complainant.

Sh. H.S. Saini, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 3.

OPs No.2, 4 and 5 deleted.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.             The Complainant was interested in immigrating to Australia. She had thus approached the OPs who were experts in providing guidance to people interesting in immigrating to Australia. She has stated in the complaint that all documents required for the immigration process were submitted by her to the OPs for obtaining a work permit to Australia. The requisite fee of Rs.1,74,999/- was also paid to the OPs through Cheques i.e. Rs.25,000/- on 30.12.2008, Rs.49,999/- on 07.01.2009 and Rs.1.00 lakh on 09.03.2009.

                The Complainant has stated that she was assured by the OPs that in case visa was not granted to her the entire amount would be refunded. Another demand draft dated 7.4.2009 for Rs.15,700/-  as visa fee in favour of Australian Embassy was also handed over to the OPs. However, the OPs informed the Complainant that her case had been rejected due to some technical problem and the Complainant was again made to deposit another demand draft dated 26.6.2009 for Rs.15,700/- as new processing fee. Thereafter, various correspondences were exchanged between the parties, but the OPs were not able to provide the promised visa to the Complainant. 

                In this regard the Complainant also filed a Criminal Complaint against the OPs before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh on 7.10.2009. She also served a legal notice upon the OPs through her Advocate on 3.8.2010. As the grievance of the Complainant has not been redressed and the OPs have not been able to provide immigration to Australia, the Complainant has filed this complaint with a request for refund of Rs.2,06,399/-, along with interest and compensation. The Complainant has attached the details of the entire payments made by her as annexures to the complaint along with other relevant documents.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3.             During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the Complainant made a statement that OPs No. 2, 4 and 5 be deleted from the array of parties.

4.             OPs No.1 & 3 in their joint reply have taken the preliminary objection that the complaint has just been made with a motive to defame and extract money from the OPs. In fact, the case of the Complainant was rejected by the Australian Embassy twice; firstly, on 11.05.2009 {Annexure R-1} and secondly, on 24.08.2009 {Annexure R-2}. The first rejection letter stated that the Complainant was not seeking a genuine entry to Australia as the documents provided by her showing her financial capacity and sponsorship evidence when verified by the Australian Embassy were found to be fraudulent. The second rejection was on the ground that the Complainant had no genuine intention to entry and stay as a student in Australia. At this time, the Complainant had also been interviewed by the Embassy and the answers provided in response to the questions put by the Embassy led to the observation that the Complainant was not a genuine applicant. The OPs have thus pleaded that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. They have further pleaded that they had never given any assurance of grant of visa to the Complainant.

                On merits, OPs have submitted that the Complainant had contacted them to facilitate her immigration to Australia, which would have been provided to her after clearing her Student Course/ Programme as a Registered Nurse in Australia.  After completion of all necessary formalities and attachment of all relevant documents the visa file was prepared by the OPs, and was deposited by the Complainant herself before the Australian Embassy.  The payments received from the Complainant were as per payment plan. The total amount payable was Rs.4,00,000/- out of which Rs.25000/- was processing fee and documentation charges which was non-refundable; Rs.50,000/- was the fee of the Nursing Board Australia for its registration and to verify the Complainant’s qualification certificates from the Nursing Board Punjab.  The third installment was to be paid as initial fee to the Institute. The balance fee of Rs.2,25,000/- was to be paid by the Complainant after grant of visa by the Australian Embassy. 

                OPs have further submitted that it was made  very clear to the Complainant on the very first day that the embassy fee and visa fee and charges for Chartered Accountant’s report would be directly paid by the Complainant. OPs have denied all other averments made by the Complainant. They have stated that the decision letter dated 11.5.2009 was directly sent to the address of the Complainant by the Australian Embassy. Further the OPs have submitted that both the Complainant and her father are guilty of providing forged and fake documents to them, as well as the Australian Embassy due to which her visa application has been rejected twice. In fact, it is the Complainant who has been harassing the OPs by sending threatening e-mails and filing false & frivolous complaints before the Police Authorities at Ludhiana and Chandigarh. Reiterating the submissions made in the preliminary objections, OPs have therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

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

7.             It is evident from the facts and a perusal of the record that the OPs had adequately prepared the file of all required documents submitted by the Complainant for obtaining visa for the Complainant from the Australian High Commission. The amounts paid by the Complainant were towards processing fee, as well as for onward transmission to the Nursing Board Australia as also to the Australian High Commission.

8.             Annexures R-1 and R-2 are the letters of rejection by the Australian Government sent directly to the address of the Complainant.  The relevant extracts of these two letters are reproduced hereinbelow:-

 “Annexure R-1 ( Dated 11^th May, 2009)

I wish to advise you that the 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.

xxxxx                    xxxxx                     xxxxx               xxxxx

Comments: You have provided evidence of sponsor relationship in your application as part of your evidence to meet the financial capacity requirement. The relevant authorities have verified that this evidence is fraudulent. As you have provided fraudulent information regarding your financial capacity in your application I am not satisfied that you have the financial capacity to undertake a course of study in Australia without contravening a condition of the visa relating to work. I am not satisfied that you meet clause 570.223(2)(i)(B) and clause 5A205.

As I am not satisfied that you meet the requirements for 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”

“Annexure R-2 ( Dated 24 AUG 2009)

This letter refers to the applicant for a Student (Temporary) Class TU sub class 570 visa, which was lodged at New Delhi on 29.06.2009.

I wish to advise you that the 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.

xxxxx                    xxxxx                     xxxxx               xxxxx

Comments: You have been interviewed in relation to the proposed course of study in Australia and on other information relating to this application. The answers provided in response to these questions were such that concerns were raised as to your genuine intention to undertake this course of study and to comply with any conditions subject to which any visa granted would be subject. As such I am not satisfied that you are a genuine applicant for entry and stay in Australia.

This application for a student visa has also been assessed against the requirements of the other sub-classes relating to the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. I find that you do not meet the requirements for these sub classes either.

As I am not satisfied that you meet the requirements for 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”

                A perusal of the letters given above clearly shows that the information/ documents provided by the Complainant for grant of visa were found to be inadequate/ fraudulent by the Australian Government, due to which her visa was rejected.  Her financial capacity was found to be inadequate (Annexure R-1) and her genuine intention to take the course of study and comply with the conditions subject to grant of visa was found to be unsatisfactory (Annexure R-2). It has also been clearly mentioned that all visa fees paid by the Complainant to the relevant authorities was non-refundable. 

9.             The details of payments attached by the Complainant show that only Rs.25,000/- has been paid by her to Foreign Horizons. This amount has been admitted by them and is towards the processing fee of her application. Rs.49,999/- and Rs.1,00,000/- have been paid to T & A Overseas Consultant Pvt. Limited who are not a party to the dispute. Also two demand drafts of Rs.15,700/- at Annexure C-3 and C-4 are in the name of Australian High Commission. Hence, the allegations of the Complainant that the OPs have taken Rs.2,06,399/- are incorrect. The visa application of the Complainant has been rejected.

10.               It is evident from the records that the OPs have performed their part of the contract by processing and preparing the file of the Complainant as per the documents provided.  The OPs would have no cause to believe that the documents provided by the Complainant were fraudulent in any way.  This finding has been made by the Australian Government. It is also the main cause for rejection of visa. The rejection has not been  attributed to inadequacy of file preparation or inadequate documents. It is thus evident that the OPs had performed their duties adequately as contracted between the parties. Rejection of visa to the Complainant cannot be a ground for demand of refund of the amounts paid by the Complainant.

11.           Relying on the above discussion, we feel that the Complainant has not been able to make out a case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss this complaint with no order as to costs.

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

Announced

08^th February, 2012.                                               

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER