1. Ms. Yuyam Chiu,

            32, Market Street, Kolkata-87,

            P.S. New Market.                                                                                              _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. The Branch Manager,

            Y-AXIS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

            Kanak Building, 3^rd Floor,

            41, Chowringhee Road,

            Kolkata-71, P.S. Park Street.       

1. The Manager Director,

Y-AXIS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

3^rd & 6^th Floor, Dega Tower Raj Bhavan Road,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082.                                                           ________ Opposite Parties

Present :           Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   12    Dated   19/01/2015.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant has availed of the services of the o.ps. to get her immigration documents for Canada on Dec. 2011 and paid Rs.50,000/- for the same. Complainant has undertaken the French Course based on the Canada immigration process requirement. Complainant has not received any services from o.ps. and when complainant decided to cancel the agreement she was offered only 25% of the amount she paid for the services.When complainant enquired about the matter o.ps. informed that due to the changes in the immigration guidelines complainant was not eligible for the Canadian immigration. Complainant has already filed a complaint against o.p. no.2 for a refund but nothing was done. Hence, the application with prayer for full refund along with compensation and cost.

            O.ps. appeared before the Forum and filed w/v. In their w/v o.ps. had denied all the material allegation interalia stated that o.ps. had agreed to provide their services to the complainant based on the terms and conditions agreed between the complainant and the o.ps. They have also stated that on the information provided by complainant in her resume and also the details filled up in the Info Collection Form given by o.p., her profile was assessed positive, subject to the condition mentioned in the evaluation report. The said evaluation report is subject to change based on any change introduced by the Canadian Immigration Authority subsequently. All the pre requisites like IELTS (International English Language Testing and System) scores, French language scores, documents and fund requirement were clearly mentioned in the evaluation report. In the month of March 2012 the Quebec Immigration Authority had announced new rules and as per the said rules complainant had become ineligible to apply for Quebec and the same was informed to the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It iss admitted fact that complainant had approached the o.ps. to get her immigration documents for Canada in Dec 2011. Accordingly, complainant paid the amount for Quebec full service. Complainant had also undertaken French Language Course to get the immigration documents for Canada. No service was given by o.ps. to complainant to get her immigration documents. When complainant had enquired to get the services from o.ps., o.ps. informed her that due to some changes in rules and regulations of the Quebec Immigration Authority she became ineligible to apply for Quebec and offered her only 25% of her deposited amount towards Quebec full service.  O.ps. should inform the complainant earlier. As they have not provided any services to the complainant due to new rules introduced in March 2012 the terms and conditions of the clause “Refund in case of withdrawal” will not be applicable for the instant case. Moreover, o.ps.  had further offered the complainant 50% refund of the consultation fee on 07/06/2013 after a lot of correspondences. It clearly shows that o.ps. had admitted their latches in their part.  O.ps had neither provided any service to the complainant nor sought for any document from the complainant to give her the immigration document. So, we find deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. as complainant has suffered mental agony.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to the complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.