Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.8.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant). 2. The complainant hired the services of the OPs for permanent residence visa, in Canada, and a Contract of Engagement dated 16.6.2009 was executed between the parties. A sum of Rs.25,000/- as retainership fee, was charged by the OPs, vide receipt No.101208 dated 16.6.2009. Professional fee of Rs.20,000/- was received by the OPs on 28.6.2009, from the complainant. The complainant was also directed to pay 400 US Dollars to the Global Strategic Business Consultancy, and Canadian Dollars 1100 (INR 50000) to the Receiver General for Canada. It was stated that the aforesaid amounts were charged by the OPs, even before submitting the application of the complainant, for permanent residence visa in Canada, on 31.7.2009. It was further stated that after charging such a hefty amount, the OPs did not scrutinize the application of the complainant thoroughly, and simply forwarded the same to the Canadian High Commission, as a result whereof, the Canadian High Commission sought a number of documents and information from the complainant, vide letter dated 29.9.2009. It was further stated that the complainant duly complied with all the requirements of Canadian High Commission and submitted the requisite documents on 10.1.2010. It was further stated that the OPs failed to provide the requisite professional assistance, for preparation of a submission report and presentation, as to how the complainant fulfilled the criteria. It was further stated that the complainant was not even provided thorough training, under the Interview Preparation Course. Ultimately, the application of the complainant for permanent residence visa, in Canada, was rejected by the Canadian High Commission, vide letter dated 26.7.2010, on account of the unprofessional, callous and casual approach of the OPs. It was further stated that when the complainant asked for refund of the amount of fee, referred to above, the OPs failed to do so. 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 by him. 3. The OPs filed written reply, wherein, it was admitted that the complainant entered into two separate Contracts of Engagement i.e one with the answering OPs and the second with M/s GSBC, Dubai. It was stated that the complainant claimed refund of 400 US $ paid to M/s GSBC, Dubai, which had not been impleaded as a party, and, as such, the complaint was not maintainable, in regard to that relief. It was further stated that it was clearly mentioned in para-7 of the Contract of Engagement that the fee charged, by the Immigration Authorities, was payable to the Immigration Authorities, in accordance with the current Immigration Regulations of the respective Countries, and the refund of the said fee could not be sought from the OPs. It was further stated that after charging fee, the OPs, performed their part of the Contract. It was further stated that it was the complainant who violated the various clauses of the Contract of Engagement. It was further stated that the documents, which were submitted by the complainant, believing the same to be correct and true, were forwarded to the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi by the OPs. It was further stated that the Canadian High Commission declined the permanent residence Visa for Canada to the complainant, on the basis of conclusion, that he (complainant) had misrepresented his work experience, in order to establish that he fulfilled the requirements of the Ministerial Instructions. It was further stated that the power to grant or reject Visa, was in the hands of Canadian Embassy and the OPs had no concern with the same. It was further stated that it was not, on account of any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, that the Visa for permanent residence, was declined to the complainant. 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 dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 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 the appellant hired the services of the OPs, for getting Permanent Residence Visa, in Canada, and paid the requisite fee to them. He further submitted that the case of the complainant was not properly presented by the OPs, to the Canadian High Commission, which act on their part, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as a result whereof, his application for grant of permanent residence Visa for Canada was rejected. He further submitted that had the OPs taken care, to properly scrutinize the documents, submitted by the complainant, before forwarding the same to the Canadian High Commission, his application for the grant of permanent residence Visa, would not have been rejected. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service on the part of the OPs. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to he set aside. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The short question, that arises for consideration, in this appeal, is, as to whether, the application for the grant of permanent residence Visa for Canada, to the complainant, was rejected by the Canadian High commission, on account of deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, or not. Admittedly, the services of the OPs were hired by the complainant, and they were paid a sum of Rs.25000/- vide receipt dated 16.6.2009 and professional fee of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt dated 28.6.2009. The complainant applied for permanent residence Visa for Canada, under student category. According to the Contract of Engagement Ex.R1, executed between the parties, it was the duty of the complainant to provide all information truthfully, in writing, required by the Company, for processing of his application for Visa, as per the instructions of the Company. It was further provided in Clause 2(b) of this document, that the client shall be solely responsible for all the consequences, for submission of false information or documents. According to Clause 2 (d) of this Contract of Engagement, it was the duty of the complainant to provide all the supporting documents and other evidence, as required by the Company. It was further provided under this Clause that the complainant shall provide only such documents, which were legal, valid and genuine, especially the documents, pertaining to, but not limited to educational qualifications, work experience and financial statements. It was further provided that any discrepancy, in the above, may seriously affect the case of any client. The complainant, submitted employment document, with regard work experience, as a Computer Instructor since April,2007 on the letter head of ICAII, alongwith the application. The documents submitted by the complainant were sent by the OPs to the Canadian High Commission. The Canadian High Commission, made enquiries, with regard the employment document, on the letter head of ICAII submitted by the complainant, in support of work experience, as Computer Instructor. This work experience certificate, was found to be false, by the Canadian High Commission. The Canadian High Commission wrote letter Annexure 11 to the complainant, which reads as under ; “This refers to your application for permanent residence in Canada. I have now completed the assessment of your application and I have determined that you do not qualify for the issuance of a permanent resident visa to Canada. Section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts, relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act. Section 40(2)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifies that the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period to two years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1). In support of your stated work experience as a computer instructor since April 2007, you submitted employment documents on the letterhead of ICAII. On February 26, 2010, calls were made by our office to you and your employer to verify your stated work experience. The employees of ICAII did not know you. In addition, the information provided by the technical manager of ICAII as to the number of faculty members, the subjects taught by you, who you informed when taking leave from work and when you would be resuming duties did not match with the information provided by you in these regards. The evidence available to me leads me to conclude that you misrepresented your work experience in order to establish that you meet the requirements of the Ministerial Instructions. The misrepresentation of this material fact could have induced an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as visas could have been issued to you and your family member included in your application, had this misrepresentation not been discovered. As a result this misrepresentation , you and your family member included in your application are inadmissible to Canada for a period of two years from the date of this letter. Section 11(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that a foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if , following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not admissible and meets the requirements of this Act. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that you are inadmissible and I am therefore refusing your application”. 10. From the contents of the aforesaid letter, it is evident that the rejection of Visa of the complainant by the Canadian High Commission was, on account of the false documents, submitted and misrepresentation made by the complainant. The OPs could not know, as to whether, the documents submitted by the complainant, alongwith the application, for permanent residence Visa for Canada, were true or false. They believed his statement that those documents were true, legal, valid and genuine. Since, the complainant, himself, was responsible for rejection of visa, on account of the aforesaid reason, the OPs could not be held deficient in rendering service to him. The District Forum was, thus, right, in holding so. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. The order impugned, rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The same deserves to be upheld. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 14. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
