STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. M/S Rimwea Carreer Forum Limited, SCO 23-25, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2. Dr. Kapil Kumar Garg, Managing Director, M/S Rimwea Carreer Forum Limited, SCO 23-25, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3. Ashish Garg, Director/Manager, M/S Rimwea Carreer Forum Limited, SCO 23-25, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellants

V e r s u s

Palwinder Kaur, W/o Sh.Bhupinder Singh, resident of H.No.123, Street No.8, Harkrishan Nagar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

              ....Respondent

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

BEFORE:   MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh.R.K.Dogra, Advocate for the appellants.

              Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate proxy for Sh.Arun          Dogra, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the OPs(now appellants), as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund to the complainant [Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.80,000/- (Australian Dollars 2060)] = Total Rs.1,05,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. since the respective dates of its deposit with them by the complainant. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing him mental agony, pain, harassment and financial loss, alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The order shall be fully complied with by the OPs severally and jointly within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay penal interest @18% p.a. instead of paying it @9% p.a. on the said amount i.e. Rs.1,05,000/- since the dates of the its deposit, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant besides payment of compensation and litigation costs.

However, the OPs are free to claim the fee refund of Rs.80,000/- from the concerned Australian department, if so desired, and the complainant shall  furnish all the required documents including undertaking/affidavit/ letter of subrogation etc. to the OPs, required for the purpose”.

2.           The facts, in brief, are that, allured by the advertisements of the OPs, the complainant approached OP-1, alongwith the requisite documents, for seeking immigration to Australia. The OPs, assured the complainant, that she fulfilled the requirements and there was no possibility of failure of her application.  They asked the complainant, to deposit the original passport, which was deposited by her.  It was agreed that the total fee was Rs.50,000/-, out of which Rs.10,000/-, were paid on 14.10.2006, in the office of OP-1 and Rs.40,000/-, were to be paid, after the issuance of Visa. The complainant, submitted all the documents, required by the OPs. However, the OPs, started demanding more money, despite the fact, that it was agreed that, balance amount would be taken, after the issuance of Visa. Perforce, the complainant, paid Rs.15,000/-, on 27.11.2006, to the OPs.  In between, the OPs, also misplaced the original passport of the complainant. The pre-migration skills assessment application of the complainant, was found satisfactory, and a positive ACS assessment report dated 20.3.2007, was received by the OPs.  It was stated that the OPs vide letter dated 27.3.2007, asked the complainant, to submit some documents, which were deposited. On the asking of the OPs, two drafts of Australian Dollars 1000 and 1060, dated 25.8.2007, were also submitted by the complainant. It was further submitted that, thereafter, the complainant, made repeated visits to OP-1, for processing her application for Australian Visa, but there was no response. The complainant represented the OPs, vide letters dated 19.1.2010 and 28.6.2010, to process her application for Australian Visa, but to no avail.  The OPs, also failed to refund the amount, paid by the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. 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.

2.               In their written reply, the OPs, pleaded that the complaint was barred by time. It was further pleaded that the complainant, had not approached the District Forum, with clean hands.  The factual matrix of the case, was not disputed. It was stated that, on receipt of the assessment report, the OPs, asked the complainant, to submit educational qualification documents, documents regarding experience, spouse education documents, spouse experience documents, children’s birth certificate, children’s educational qualification documents and all family members details, but she failed to do so.  It was further stated that the file of the complainant, was to be processed further, only after she had submitted the required documents.  It was denied that the matter was delayed, because the passport of the complainant, was misplaced by the OPs. It was further denied that the OPs, ever asked the complainant, to deposit the money. It was further denied that the OPs, agreed, that the balance payment, except Rs.10,000/-, was to be paid to them, only after the grant of Visa. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

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

4.               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. 

5.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/OPs.

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

7.               The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the appellants/OPs, in processing the application of the complainant. He further submitted that, since the complainant, did not supply the requisite documents, referred to above, her application could not be processed. The submission of Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Admittedly, the services of the OPs were hired by the complainant for consultation for Australian immigration Visa. Undisputedly, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, was received by the OPs, from the complainant, as consultancy fee for Australian Visa, for which receipt Annexure C-3, was issued by the OPs, to the complainant. The complainant, paid another sum of Rs.15,000/-, to the OPs, towards consultancy fee for Australian Visa on their demand. She also submitted, two drafts of Australian Dollars 1000 and 1060, dated 25.08.2007, to the OPs, on their demand. Annexure C-8, is the letter dated 27.03.2007, which was sent by the OPs, to the complainant, whereby, she was informed that her positive  ACS assessment report, had been received on 27.03.2006, and for preparing the case for DIMA, they required the documents, referred to above. Since, the complainant for the first time, contacted the OPs, on 14.10.2006, the question of receipt of her positive ACS assessment report on 27.03.2006, as indicated, in this letter, could not, by any stretch of imagination, arise. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, it was only on account of typographical/clerical mistake, that date 27.03.2006, instead of 27.03.2007, was written in this document. No doubt, in the written reply, it was also stated that it was only on account of typographical/clerical mistake that dated 27.03.2006 instead of 27.03.2007, was written. According to the affidavit of the complainant, she supplied all the documents to the OPs, as asked for by them. In her evidence, by way of affidavit, the complainant also stated that on the asking of the OPs, she submitted two drafts dated 25.08.2007 of 1000 and 1060 respectively to them. Copies of these drafts are Annexures C-9 and C-10. The evidence of the complainant, that she submitted the aforementioned documents and two drafts of Australian dollars, on the asking of the OPs, was not rebutted by the OPs, as Dr.Kapil Kumar, OP-2, only submitted the brief affidavit, by way of evidence, which could not be legally taken into consideration. It was, thus, provided that since the complainant had submitted the documents asked for vide letter C-8, to the OPs, and that was why they demanded two drafts of Australian Dollars, in favour of DIMA, referred to above, which were also submitted by her to them. Despite that they did not process her application for immigration Visa.  The complainant, when did not receive any positive response from the OPs, she sent letters Annexure C-14 dated 19.01.2010 and Annexure C-13 28.06.2010, but the OPs, did not bother to reply to the same. The complainant took all possible measures to approach the OPs, for the purpose of processing her application, but to no avail. The OPs, thus, were deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant.

8.               Not only this, as per the own admission of the OPs, though the original passport was submitted by the complainant, to them on 16.10.2006, yet, they misplaced the same, somewhere. It was only on 19.09.2007, vide Annexure C-7, that a duplicate passport was made available to the complainant, by the OPs. It appears that due to this reason the application of the complainant could not be processed by them properly. Misplacement of the original passport of the complainant, by the OPs, clearly proved grave negligence and gross deficiency in rendering service on their part.

9.               It was next submitted, by the Counsel for the appellants, that two drafts of Australian Dollars 1000 and 1060, in favour of DIMA, were sent by the complainant, to the Australian Authorities directly and were never given to the OPs. He further submitted that the District Forum was, wrong in directing the OPs, even to refund this amount, in favour of the complainant. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not appear to be correct. Since, the services of the OPs, were hired by the complainant, for the purpose of getting Australian immigration Visa, and her application, was being processed by them, there was no question, on her part to prepare these drafts, on her own and send the same to DIMA, directly. As stated above, it was proved from the evidence of the complainant that it was only, on the asking of the OPs, that these drafts were prepared, in favour of DIMA. These drafts were submitted, to the OPs, by the complainant. Under these circumstances, it could not be said, that the OPs, were not liable to refund to the amount of two drafts of Australian Dollars, submitted to them, by the complainant, though they were entitled to seek refund from the Australian Authorities. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

10.            The immigration agents like the OPs, by giving 100% of getting immigration, to various countries, allure innocent, simple and unsuspecting students/persons, who fall prey to their nefarious activities. Such assurances, are given by the immigration agents, like the OPs, just with a view to mint money and to deceive the innocent persons. After minting money, from the innocent, simple and unsuspecting students/persons, they neither process their applications properly, nor refund the money, paid by them. Such activities, on the part of the immigration agents, are highly condemnable.

11.            The OPs, did not fulfill their assurance, after obtaining money, from the complainant. The complainant was not granted immigration Visa to Australia. Once, the immigration Visa to Australia, was not granted to the complainant, and the OPs, failed to fulfill the assurance, it was required of them, to refund the amount paid by her, to them, but despite repeated requests made through various letters, to the OPs, by the complainant, the amount was not refunded, as a result, whereof, she was dragged into litigation. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding, that the OPs were grossly deficient, in rendering proper service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum, was, also right, in holding that besides the  refund of the amount paid by the complainant, she was also entitled to compensation, for physical harassment and mental agony, as also, interest on account of the financial loss suffered by her, for improperly retaining the money, paid by her, to the OPs, for a long period.  The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

12.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

13.            The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer, from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

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

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

Pronounced.

November 8,  2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg