Healthyway Immigration Consultants Private Limited, SCO No. 49-51, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh. Sukhdev Singh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Ramanjit Kaur Daughter of Sh. Tarlochan Singh, R/o Village Sill, Tehsil Kharar, District Ajitgarh (Mohali).

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

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

[a]   To refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- received by it from the Complainant as per Annexure C-1;

[b]   To pay Rs.15,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]   To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

The above said order shall be complied, within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] from the date of its payment i.e. 15.3.2010, till it is paid; and the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] of para 15 above shall attract interest @18% p.a. from the date of this order, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/.”

2.           

3.           Australia. On the other hand, it was stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Party, for arrangement of visa for Canada, in the year 2010. It was further stated that the complainant did not know herself, as for which Country, she had applied for visa. It was further stated that after rendering services, in the year 2010, No Objection Certificate/Letter of Completion-Annexure OP-1, was issued by the complainant. It was admitted that a sum of Rs.25,000/-, was received by the Opposite Party, from the complainant, as consultancy charges plus College registration fee. It was denied that any amount of Rs.10,000/-, on account of visa and medical charges, was

4.           

5.            

6.           

7.            

8.           

9.           Canada. Whatever, the case may be, the services of the Opposite Party, were hired by the complainant, for obtaining the student visa. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, between the parties, that a sum of Rs.25,000/-, was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Party, as consultancy charges plus College registration fee. Once, the services of the Opposite Party, were hired, by the complainant, for the aforesaid purpose, it was for it, to prove, as to what it did, and in which manner, it assisted her (complainant), in allegedly submitting the documents, and applying for the student visa, for Australia or Canada. No document, worth the name, was produced, on the record, by the Opposite Party, to prove that it rendered any service, to the complainant, in the shape of assisting her, in submitting the requisite documents, through it, to the Embassy, for the purpose of grant of visa. Had any professional services, been rendered by the Opposite Party, to the complainant, for the purpose of assisting her, in securing student visa, the matter would have been different. Once, the Opposite Party failed to prove through any documentary evidence, that it had rendered any service to the complainant, for the purpose of securing student visa, for Australia or Canada, or getting registered her name, with a College of either of these Countries, it had no right to retain the professional fee/consultancy charges/College registration fee, obtained from her, for the aforesaid purpose. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding that since, no service was rendered by the Opposite Party, as per the Contract of Engagement Annexure OP-2, to the complainant, despite obtaining the fees, referred to above, for the aforesaid purpose, it amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, on its (Opposite Party) part, and, as such, it is liable to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-, to her (complainant), which was deposited by her.

10.        

11.        

12.        

13.        

14.        

15.        

Pronounced.

November 28, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg