1.      This Revision Petition No.796 of 2020 filed on 25.08.2020 challenges the impugned order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 10.10.2019.  Vide this order, the learned State Commission dismissed Appeal No.3692 of 2011. This Appeal was filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban (‘District Forum’,) dated 29.09.2011. Vide this order, the learned District Forum directed the petitioners/OPs-Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (the ‘OPs’) to refund Rs.1,38,916/- to the Respondent/Complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of payments. The Petitioners/ OPs shall also pay costs of Rs.10,000/-. 

2.      As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 93 days in filing the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.5289, the delay was condoned vide order dated 10.10.2022.

3.      The brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant enrolled himself under Denmark Immigration Gold Package, offered by the OP. The OP had made the assessment of the Complainant's application and details and found that he was eligible for application Scheme Denmark, to which he has to pay Rs.1,38,916. Accordingly, on receipt of communication to this effect he paid a sum of Rs.50,000 on 20.12.2008 as the Retainer Fee, Rs.20,000 as Professional Fee on 18.02.2009 and post land Service Fee of 1500 US Dollars (Rs.68,916.90) on 11.03.2011.

4.      Thereafter, on his observing that OP is not giving any service, hiding lot of information and mis-guiding him, he applied for Danish Green Card Scheme on his own by visiting Denmark Immigration Service Website. On 20.04.2010, he received the copy of refusal of Residence Permit from the OP. Subsequent to this refusal, on 25.11.2010, the OP offered him part refund of 1000 US dollars towards full and final settlement. It is alleged by the Complainant that the OP had given false promise of immigrating him to Denmark under Green card Scheme within one year and the OP misled him by giving assessment score of 130 points. Whereas, the Danish Immigration Service allotted him only 90 points. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the Complainant had approached the District Forum seeking refund of Rs.1,38,916.90 along with interest.

5.      The OP in its reply, amongst other pleas, contended that the Complaint is not maintainable, and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since complainant has not made Global Strategic Business Consultancy as party to the proceedings. It was contended that, the Complainant had voluntarily approached the OP for his immigration to Denmark under Gold Package Scheme by paying necessary Fees. The OP assists individuals for getting immigration of different companies on seeing their profiles. As per their guidelines, the candidates applying for Danish Immigration must have completed 18 years of education. Whereas, the Complainant had completed only 16 years of education, hence, he was not eligible for Danish Immigration. His immigration was refused because of less merit from the candidate's side and there is no deficiency in service and OP is only assisting the Complainant in forwarding his Application for Danish Immigration. As per the Agreement, there is no clause for refunding the amount, but OP offered to refund 1000 US dollars and asked the complainant to give his consent for the same, but the Complainant has not responded for the same. Thus OP sought dismissal of the Complaint.

6.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 29.09.2011 allowed the complaint and the OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,38,916 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments and to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs.

7.      On Appeal, the learned State Commission vide order dated 10.10.2019 confirmed the order of the District Forum dated 29.09.2011 and dismissed the Appeal. It is against this order that this Revision Petition has been filed. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful attention to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties.

8.      It is admitted position that the Complainant was enrolled under Denmark Immigration Gold Package Scheme with the assistance of OPs, by paying a sum of Rs.1,38,916.  When the Complainant is not satisfied with the service given by the OPs he applied for Danish Green Card Scheme on his own with the help of Denmark Immigration Service Website. The Complainant’s main allegation is the difference in allotting assessment score by the OP vis-à-vis that of Denmark Immigration Service. It is contended by the OPs that the Complainant is not eligible for Immigration, since he was not completed 18 years of education. At the same time, they collected the said amount from him and paid some to Global Strategic Business Consultancy and the receipt of 1500 USD also issued by the Global Strategic Business Consultancy. Further, the contention of the OP was that the consultancy has not made Global Strategic Business Consultancy as part to the present matter.  In this regard, the learned District Forum by observing that a copy of the Draft for 1500 USD is issued in the name of the Global Strategic Business Consultancy and it shows that said Draft was actually delivered to the OP and it was the OP who had acknowledged its receipt by putting its seal on it. Therefore, it goes to clearly show that this Consultancy is only part of OP and the amount is actually received by the OP. They, therefore, offered to refund 1000 USD establishing that the OP was responsible for handling the matter of arranging immigration of the Complainant. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the National Commission passed in R.P. Nos.3334 and 3335 of 2010, decided on 08.03.2011. Upon perusal of this judgment, it is revealed that the Complainant had paid the amount to a third party directly. But, in the present case, the Complainant had made the payment to the OP and the OP itself acknowledged by putting seal of its office. Therefore, this judgment has limited application to the present case.

9.      It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Thus, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act of 1986 or now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act of 2019.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 and in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, has held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

10.    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

11.    The deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner/OP is established and the learned District Forum was, therefore, directed the OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,38,916 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments and to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs. In view of the foregoing deliberations and well reasoned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission, I am of the considered view that these orders require no intervention.

12.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is therefore Dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.