STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

M/s RIMWEA Career Forum Ltd., through its Managing Director, SCO No.23-25, Third Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Sh. Onkar Verma, son of Sh. Ashok Kumar C/o Chahlanwala Jewellers, Dabbi Bazar, Samrala, District Ludhiana (Punjab).

              ....Respondent

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

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                   SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.           This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.12.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II,  U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-

“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”.  

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who is a Graduate from the Panjab University, Chandigarh, had also passed the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) on 25.07.2007. Being allured, by the advertisement, issued by the Opposite Party, in the newspapers, about its specialization in providing immigration to various Countries, the complainant approached it (Opposite Party), with a desire for immigration to Australia, on student visa. He was told that he fulfilled the requisite conditions for immigration to Australia. He provided  the requisite documents, to the Opposite Party, for completion of formalities required for immigration. He also issued a demand draft no.000136 dated 12.10.2007, in the sum of Rs.16,100/-, in the name of Australian High Commission,  towards the initial assessment fee, and handed over the same to the Opposite Party. Another demand draft no.326681 dated 20.8.2007, for 1500 Australian Dollars, in the name of HOLMESGLEN INSTITUTE OF TAFE,  was also handed over to the Opposite Party, for submission to the 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 charges vide Annexure C-4. Another amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, in cash, was paid to the Opposite Party on 22.7.2008, on account of processing charges. A receipt, in respect of this amount,  was issued, under the signatures of one Robin, an authorized signatory, of the Opposite Party. Another sum of Rs.10,000/-, in cash, as filing charges, was paid to the Opposite Party,  against which,  no receipt was issued by it.. It was stated that the complainant spent Rs.7,000/-, for obtaining medical certificates, from the doctors of Australian High Commission, to get the student visa. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 25.7.2009,  from the Australian Government, that he did  not satisfy the relevant criteria, for grant of student visa, and his application had been rejected. The ground, which was set up, for rejection, in the rejection letter, was that the complainant had not provided sufficient evidence, regarding availability of funds with him, to meet the course fee, living costs, and education/school cost, in Australia (Annexure C-6 and C-7). It was further stated that the rejection of visa of the complainant was solely attributable to the Opposite Party, due to its negligent acts. It was further stated that, when the complainant, asked the Opposite Party, to refund the amount aforesaid, it (Opposite Party), failed to do so. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. 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 to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint. It was further pleaded that the complaint, being false and frivolous, had been filed,  just with a view to extract money,  from the Opposite Party, and, as such, the complainant  did fall within the definition of a consumer. It was further pleaded that the complaint was barred by time. It was further pleaded that,  in the absence of impleading M/s VFS Global Services Private Limited, as one of the necessary parties, as an amount of Rs.18,521/- , as per the Annexure C-4, was paid to it, by the complainant, towards visa fee, and service charges, the complaint was not maintainable. It was, however, stated that the complainant,  never approached the Opposite Party for the purpose of immigration to Australia on student visa. It was further stated that the true facts were that  the real brother of the complainant namely Tarun Verma, had approached the Opposite Party,  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. It was further stated that the brother of the complainant, had gone to China for studies. It was further stated that for getting the student visa, aforesaid, the complainant was required to complete all the  necessary documents, and thereafter, it was the sole discretion of the Immigration Department of the Australian Government,   to allow or reject the application for visa. The role of the Opposite Party was only to assist for completion of documents and prepare the candidate(s) for interview. The receipt of any amount,  as mentioned,  in the complaint, by the Opposite Party, was denied. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties, led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties,  and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

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

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that no amount, whatsoever, as mentioned in the complaint, was paid to the Opposite Party. He further submitted that even the complainant, did not approach  the Opposite Party, for the purpose of immigration to Australia, on  student visa. He further submitted that the mere fact that the amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, was allegedly paid by the complainant, to one Robin, who had no connection with the Opposite Party, did not make it, in any way, responsible. He further submitted since neither the complainant approached the Opposite Party, nor paid any amount to it, for the purpose of immigration, to Australia, on student visa, the question of processing of papers by it, did not at all arise. He further submitted that even Robin, to whom Rs.1,08,000/- were allegedly paid, was not impleaded as a necessary party. He further submitted that the District Forum, was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that it was, on account of deficiency in service and negligence of the Opposite Party, that the grant of student visa was rejected by the Immigration Authorities. He further submitted that even the application was filed for initiating criminal proceedings, against the complainant, but the District Forum, did not accept that application. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

9.             The first question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Party, at any point of time, handled the case of the complainant, for his immigration,  to Australia, on student visa. No doubt, the Opposite Party, completely denied this factum. However, such a simple denial on the part of the Opposite Party, is of no avail. On the other hand, from Annexure C-6 dated 25.07.2009,  a document which was sent by the Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship to C/o Rimwea Career Forum Ltd., SCO 23-24-25, Third Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh-160022, which is the address of the Opposite Party, it is evident, that the complainant namely Onkar Verma, had authorized the Opposite Party, to receive the correspondence, on his behalf. It is further evident from this document, that all the information provided had been carefully considered, but the Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, regretted to inform that visa had not been granted to the  applicant namely Onkar Verma. Letter Annexure C-7 dated 25.07.2009, sent by Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, was also attached with letter Annexure C-6, with a request to the Opposite Party, to send the same to the complainant. Annexure C-7, is addressed to Onkar Verma, complainant. In this letter it was mentioned that the ground for rejection of visa was that  he (Onkar Verma),  had not provided acceptable evidence, that the amount of funds was sufficient to meet course fees, living cost  and school cost, in Australia. In case, the Opposite Party, had not handled the case of the complainant, for the grant of student visa for immigration to Australia, then the question of addressing the letter Annexure C-6,  by Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, to it, that he(complainant)  had not been granted visa, would not have arisen. Annexures C-6 and C-7 documents, therefore, clearly establish that the case of the complainant was handled by the Opposite Party, for the purpose of grant of student visa, for immigration to Australia. No evidence, was produced, by the Opposite Party, to rebut both these documents. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the case of the complainant, for student visa, for immigration to Australia, was handled by the Opposite Party. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

10.           The next question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, the amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, was paid  by the complainant to one Robin, and,  whether he (Robin), was an authorized signatory of the Opposite Party or not. Annexure C-5, is a copy of the receipt, produced by the complainant. He also testified in his affidavit, with regard to the issuance of the said receipt by Robin, a duly authorized signatory of the Opposite Party. In reply to the complaint, the Opposite Party, did not state even a single word that Robin, who issued receipt Annexure C-5, after receipt of Rs.1,08,000/-, from the complainant, was not their employee,  nor had they authorized him, to receive money, on its behalf. The Opposite Party must be having record of its employees or authorized signatories with it. In case, Robin was not an employee or authorized signatory of the Opposite Party, to collect money, from the candidates, seeking immigration to various Countries, then the record could be produced. Since, Robin held out himself, as an authorized signatory of the Opposite Party, the complainant believed him, and paid him a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- and he issued receipt Annexure C-5. The amount paid to Robin, who is proved to be the authorized signatory of the Opposite Party, and who issued receipt Annexure C-5, could be said to have been paid to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party, being the principal, is vicariously liable, for the act and conduct of its employees, or the persons, authorized by it, to collect the money, from the students/candidates, seeking immigration to foreign countries. On the principle of vicarious liability, the Opposite Party, is responsible for the acts, done by Robin, authorized signatory, on its behalf. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding so.

11.           From Annexure C-5, it is evident, that a sum of Rs.1,08,000/-, non-refundable, amount against financial assistance, was received by Robin, authorized signatory, from Onkar Verma, complainant. The tone and tenor of this document, clearly goes to show, that the Opposite Party, through Robin, its authorized signatory, held out promise to the complainant, for providing him financial assistance. The amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, thus, was received by the Opposite Party, through its authorized signatory-Robin, for the aforesaid purpose. Since the documents with regard to the financial status of the complainant, were obtained by the Opposite Party, and those were not found acceptable,(Opposite Party), could be said to be highly deficient, in rendering service. It was for the Opposite Party, to scrutinize the documents of financial status of the complainant, properly, to find out, as to whether, the same were correct and met the requisite criterion or not, but it failed to perform its job. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding, that the student visa was not granted to the complainant, only on account of the negligent act, and  deficiency, in rendering service, by the Opposite Party. The District Forum, was also right in holding that by not refunding the amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, to the complainant, the Opposite Party, was grossly deficient, in rendering service.

12.           Since the remaining amounts, mentioned in the complaint, on the face of it, were not proved to have been paid to the Opposite Party, or its authorized signatory, the  complainant could not claim the same, from it (Opposite Party). The District Forum , was right, in declining relief, to this extent.

13.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

14.           The order, passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

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

17.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

February 10, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg