BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sh. Jagdeep Singh Gosal s/o Sh. Gurmail Singh, #2222, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

M/s Rimwea Career Forum Limited, SCO 23-25, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory/MD.

                                  ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Krishan Singla, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. R.K. Dogra, Adv. for OP

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

              Succinctly put, lured by the advertisement given by the OP that they were recognized company in the field of immigration, the complainant approached them for assessment and counseling for immigration to Australia and paid Rs.4,000/- on 8.9.2007 and Rs.6,000/- on 26.10.2007.  He was told to bring medical certificate, police verification report with IELTS certificate.  He paid a sum of Rs.7,500/- as IELTS fee, Rs.10,000/- as coaching fee for IELTS preparation, $ 630 (Rs.22,000) on 8.9.2007 in getting the assessment report from Australian Government and Rs.15,000/- for nomination fee.  The OP again filed the case of the complainant by changing it under occupation of community worker for which he again paid $630 on 5.2.2008.  The OP again asked for the IELTS certificate having 6.5 bands for which he again had to pay the IELTS examination fee as well as took coaching classes and passed the exam with 6.5 bands but surprisingly the OP again told to apply for Australian visa under different occupation third time.  It has been alleged that he was made to wait since 2007 but without any positive response. Thereafter the complainant sent legal notice dated 1.9.2009 through email seeking refund but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OP admitted the receipt of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant.  It has been submitted that as per the requirement of Australian Embassy, firstly all the documents and certificates of the applicants who apply for Visa were assessed by their own different agencies like VETESSESS for which the complainant deposited 630 Australian Dollars as non refundable fee in which the answering OP had nothing to do.  The case of the complainant was not accepted due to the fact that the numbers secured by him in the IELTS did not fulfill the requirements.  It has been submitted that the case of the complainant was never rejected but it was always suggested that he should improve his marks/rank in IELTS which was not in the hands of the answering OP.  It has been alleged that the complainant himself withdrew from the process and sought refund and though the answering OP was not bound to pay the consultation fee, yet as a goodwill gesture the answering OP refunded the amount of Rs.15,000/- through cheque dated 5.2.2009. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The OP has admitted having charged a fee of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant vide Annexure C-1 and thereafter Rs.6,000/- vide Annexure C-2. The case of the complainant was processed by the OP, the same was sent to vetassess, which according to the OP is mandatory for getting immigration in that country, for which the fees of 630 Australian Dollars was deposited by the complainant. This amount was not deposited with the OP.  The vetassess submitted a positive report which is Annexure C-4, which also shows that OP had properly processed the case of the complainant for immigration.  The complainant appeared in the IELTS examination but secured only 6 Bands which were not sufficient for his immigration.  According to the OP the result Annexure C-3 of the IELTS was not acceptable to the immigration authorities and therefore his case was processed for immigration as community worker for which the marks secured by the complainant fulfilled their requirements.  The case of the OP is that the immigration authorities did not accept his case as they suspected that the complainant would not stay there and would migrate to some other place.  The complainant was asked to improve his rank in the IELTS which was very important.  It was not in the hands of the OP and therefore they cannot be blamed if the complainant did not fulfill the IELTS requirements as desired by the immigration authorities. The record therefore shows that the OP imparted sufficient and requisite consultation to the complainant but he could not get immigration due to his own fault for which the OP is not to be blamed.

6.             Though the OP was not required to refund any amount to the complainant yet as a good will gesture, they returned Rs.15,000/-.  Annexure R-1 is the affidavit of Rajpinder Singh, wife of the complainant having received the said amount on behalf of her husband as full and final settlement of her dispute.  Annexure R-2 shows that the said amount was withdrawn from the account of the OP. The complainant was therefore not entitled to any further amount.

7.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.  The present complaint is without any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.