DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 638/2010
Ashish Agarwal,
Timber Creek Terr # 41407
Fremont, CA -94539 (USA)
Local Address:
“Mayashish” 123A,
Palam Enclave,
New Delhi – 110045. -Complainant
Vs
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of External Affairs
Patiala House, New Delhi.
2. Consulate General of India,
540, Arguella Boulevard
San Francisco, CA -94118 (USA)
Through: Ministry of External Affairs
South Block, New Delhi – 11. -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 11.10.10 Date of Order: 27.02.16
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S.S. Fonia, Member
The case of the complainant is that he, his wife, minor Daughter Sharanya Agrawal and minor son Armaan Agarwal are US Citizens of Indian Origin except minor son Armaan Agarwal who is a US Citizen by birth (sic). After getting the US Passport they applied for overseas Citizenship of India (OCI)-cards to OP-2 i.e. Consulate General of India, 540, Argulla Boulevard, San Francisco, Competent Authority-94118 (USA) in order to enjoy the facilities as detailed in the complaint and they deposited the fees/charges of US $ 1100/- but they were not issued the OCI cards. In the month of December, 2009, the complainant and his family wanted to go to India to attend a marriage and, therefore, they had applied for visas and paid the visa fees but at the time of applying for visas the OPs deliberately did not reveal that their OCI cards had already been generated by the Govt. of India on 27.10.2009. According to him, a person having an OCI card needs no visa to visit India and thus he had to suffer financial loss of $ 210.00 US Dollars for visas. Hence, claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OPs to refund $ 219.00 US Dollars arbitrarily charged on account of visa fees inspite of generating the OIC cards and to pay compensation of $ 10,000/- US Dollars towards irreparable loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with the cost of present complaint.
OPs have been proceeded exparte by an order passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. None has been appearing on behalf of the OPs since 27.2.14.
We have gone through the file very carefully and proceed to decide the complaint on merits.
In our considered opinion, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since according to the complainant himself OP-2 is based in San Francisco, USA. Complainant has claimed the amounts to be refunded to him in US dollars which, in our considered opinion, cannot be granted by this Forum.
Even otherwise, the questions involved in the complaint cannot be decided without recording evidence and without perusing the rules and regulations framed of the subject. Therefore, we hold that the complaint cannot be disposed of in summary manner as is prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (S.S.FONIA) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 27.02.16.
Case No. 638/10
27.02.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (S.S.FONIA) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
