DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:402 of 2010] [M.A. NO. 154 OF 2011] Date of Institution: 01.07.2010. Date of Decision : 23.12.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Onkar Verma son of Sh. Ashok Kumar C/o Chahlanwala Jewellers, Dabbi Bazar, Samrala, District Ludhiana (Punjab). ---Complainant. V E R S U S M/s RIMWEA Career Forum Limited through its Managing Director, SCO No.23-25, Third Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for the OP. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER. This is a complaint about alleged deficiency in service by the OP for not being able to send the complainant to Australia for higher studies. The complainant has stated that he was a Graduate from Panjab University, Chandigarh and had also passed the ILETS on 25.07.2007. Being allured by the advertisement issued by the OP in the newspapers about its specialization in providing consultation for immigration to various countries, the complainant had approached the OP with a desire for immigration to Australia on a student visa. The complainant was told that he fulfilled the requisite eligibility conditions for immigration to Australia. He thus provided all the requisite documents to the OP for completion of formalities for the immigration. He also submitted a demand draft for Rs.16,100/- in the name of Australian High Commission towards the initial assessment fee to the OP. Another demand draft dated 20.8.2007 for 1500 Australian Dollars in the name of HOLMESGLEN INSTITUTE OF TAFE was also handed over to the OP for submission to Australian High Commission. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.18,521/- to M/s VFS Global Services Private Limited on 23.5.2008 towards visa fee and service charge (Annexure C-4). He also paid an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- in cash to the OP on 22.7.2008 on account of processing charges. A receipt for this amount was issued under the signatures of Sh. Robin, authorized signatory (Annexure C-5). Another sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid in cash for filing charges against which no receipt was issued. The complainant also spent Rs.7,000/- for obtaining medical certificates from the doctors of Australian High Commission to get the student visa. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked to receive a letter from Australian Government dated 25.7.2009 that as he did not satisfy the relevant criteria for grant of student visa, his application had been rejected. The ground given in the rejection letter was that the complainant had not provided acceptable evidence that the amount of funds available with himwere sufficient to meet the course fee, living cost and school cost in Australia (Annexure C-5 and C-7). Alleging that the rejection of visa of the complainant is solely attributable to the OP due to its negligent and deficient services, the complainant has filed this complaint praying for refund of the amounts paid along with compensation and cost of litigation. The complainant has also placed on record letters of offer from other colleges of U.K. in support of his eligibility for studying abroad. On notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement. In its reply, OP has taken a preliminary objection that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint as his complaint is false and frivolous with an intention to extract money from the OP. The complainant has not produced any document or brought any evidence on record to show that he paid even a single penny to the OP to hire its services. As such, he is not a consumer qua the OP as per Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. OP has also taken a preliminary objection that the complaint is barred by limitation as all the alleged payments were made by him were in October 2007 and the present complaint has been filed in July 2010. OP has also taken a preliminary objection that the complainant has not impleaded M/s VFS Global Services Private Limited as one of the necessary parties as he has alleged that Rs.18,521/- towards visa fee and service charges were paid to them. Also the complainant has not impleaded Sh. Robin as a necessary party. Even the demand draft of 1500 Australian Dollars has been issued in the name of HOLMESGLEN INSTITUTE OF TAFE. OP has further submitted that OP even went to AXIS Bank to know about the issuance of this draft of 1500 Australian Dollars. The Bank after checking its record found that the complainant had made this draft but later on stopped payment for the same on 1.11.2007 (Annexures R-1 to R-3). On merits, OP has denied all averments made by the complainant. It has further submitted that the complainant is liable under Cr.P.C. for filing false affidavit before this Court. The true facts are that the real brother of the complainant namely Tarun Verma had approached the OP for study visa in 2006 for doing MBBS in China. After receipt of Rs.1,60,500/-, his application was duly processed and he was granted visa and he had gone for studies to China. OP has further submitted that for getting the student visa, the applicant must complete all necessary documents and then it is upon the visa officer to allow or reject the application. The role of the OP is only to assist for completion of documents and then prepare the candidate for interview. The complainant has not given any details of consultations with the OP. OP has denied receipt of payments made by the complainant as stated above. Relying on the above submissions OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Both parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits along with relevant documents. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. During the course of proceedings, an application was filed on behalf of the OP for placing on record certificate dated 25.08.2011 issued by Paul Merchants Limited as Annexure R-10 as additional evidence and also for initiating criminal action against the complainant for placing on record false and wrong affidavit. OP in this application has denied all the allegations of the complainant and stated that the complaint has only been filed to extract money from the OP. The complainant in reply to this application has denied all the allegations of the OP and stated that the complainant had got the demand draft No.326681 dated 20.8.2007 for 1550 Australian Dollars issued from JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Sydney through U.T.I Bank Limited, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh and handed over the same to the OP for further submission to the said Institute. As such, M/s. Paul Merchants Limited does not come into picture. The OP has wrongly linked up the case of some other person. Also perusal of certificate would show that it is false, fabricated and manipulated document. The complainant has thus prayed for dismissal of the application. The complainant has also prayed that all the documents from (Annexures R-1 to R-10) be sent to the Government Forensic Laboratory to ascertain their genuineness. At the same time, the relevant government authorities be directed to investigate the case thoroughly. The case was then taken for arguments on the main case as well as the application. The dispute in the complaint is basically about alleged failure by the OP to send the complainant abroad on a student visa despite accepting due consideration for the same from the complainant. OP has completely denied receipt of any amount or any contract with the complainant for sending him abroad. The perusal of documents/ cheques/demand drafts placed on record by the complainant show that no amount has actually been paid to M/s. RIMWEA Career Forum Limited. However, an amount of Rs.108000/- has been paid to Sh. Robin, who is as per the affidavit of the complainant, the Accountant / Authorized Signatory of the OP. In the letter at Annexure C-6 issued by Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship to the OP, it has been written as under:- “All the information your client has provided has been carefully considered, but I regret to inform you that your client has not been granted a visa. Please find enclosed a letter for your client setting out the reasons for the decision”. The enclosure to this letter addressed to the complainant at Annexure C-7, gives the reasons for rejection of visa as under:- “You have not provided acceptable evidence that the amount of funds is sufficient to meet course fees, living costs and school costs in Australia.” The proof that the OP had handled the case of the complainant for obtaining visa from Australia is established by the two documents given above. Simple denial by the OP does not carry any weight, in absence of cogent evidence or convincing denial. The OP has raised an objection about the complainant not impleading Robin as a party, at the same time there is no denial in the reply that Robin is not their accountant / authorized signatory to receive money on their behalf. We feel that the OP is answerable for all acts of omission and commission of its employee and hence would be liable under the principle of vicarious liability. The amount paid to Robin, is thus accepted by this Forum as having been paid to their authorized representative and hence received by them. All other amounts paid by the complainant do not give any proof to show receipt by the OP. Annexure C-8 is the proof placed on record by the complainant, he had the capacity to pay for his fee as well as stay at Australia. This document is an inadequate OD Limit and hence not acceptable to the Australian High Commission to show a favourable financial position of the complainant. The grant of student visa to an applicant is the sole discretion of the concerned High Commission of the country and in the present case, the grant of student visa for Australia was the sole discretion of Australian High Commission and not a right of the complainant. The complainant has also in support of his case placed on record letters issued by other foreign educational institutes to establish his worthiness to get admission abroad (C-9,10 and 11). OP has placed on record Annexures R-1 to R-3, which show that the complainant prepared a demand draft in the name of HOLMESGLEN INSTITUTE OF TAFE and got the same cancelled subsequently. OP has also placed on record Annexures R-4 to R-9, which are receipts issued by the OP to Tarun Verma, who according to OP, is the brother of the complainant. OP had successfully sent the brother of the complainant on a student visa for doing MBBS in China. A perusal of these documents placed on record by the OP only show their attitude in trying to confuse the issue about the claims made by the complainant by involving his brother’s case, which is not any part of the allegations in the complaint. However, the facts mentioned above clearly shows the style of functioning of the OP in extracting money from unsuspecting clients. Annexure R-10 placed on record by the OP along with the application is the certificate dated 25.8.2011 issued by Paul Merchants Limited and the same states as under: - “It is certify that a DD for AUD 1500 bearing no.326681 dated 20.08.2007 was issued from AXIS Bank Limited through us by Onkar Verma. The said DD was cancelled on 01.11.2007 by us & proceeds were refunded to Onkar Verma & there is nothing pending for payment against this DD.” As per this certificate also, OP is trying to establish that there is no connection between the OP and the complainant. The complainant has denied the contents of the letter. Relying on the evidence produced on record, we definitely find merit in the submissions made by the complainant, even though there is no clear document to show any payment made to the OP. The letter at annexure C-6 issued by the Australian High Commission is evidence enough that the OP had forwarded the case of the complainant to them for grant of visa to study abroad. This could not have been done without receipt of the payments alleged to have been paid by the complainant. Relying on the facts given above in their entirety, we allow this complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.108000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. paid by the complainant to their authorized representative, from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment,. OP will also pay Rs.7000/- as cost of litigation. The miscellaneous application bearing No.154 of 2011 for placing on record a document is dismissed as the document placed on record finds no relation to the case. Otherwise also the complainant has denied the validity of the document. The above said amount be paid by the OP within 30 days of receipt of this order; failing which, OP shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the decreed amount besides the costs of litigation. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced December 23, 2011. Sd/- [LAKSHMAN SHARMA] PRESIDENT Sd/- [MADHU MUTNEJA] MEMBER Sd/- [JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU] MEMBER Ad/-
(DISTRICT FORUM-II) C.C.No.402 of 2010 [M.A. NO. 154 OF 2011] ORDER Present: None. --- As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. 23.12.2011 | (Jaswinder Singh Sidhu) | (Lakshman Sharma) | (Madhu Mutneja) | | Member | President | Member |
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
