JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent. 2. Above revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 12.01.2021, passed in First Appeal No.734/2014 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (East) Government of NCT of Delhi, dated 23.06.2014 passed in CC/188/2014), whereby District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant a sum of US$ 1200 within 45 days from the date of the order alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/- for harassment, mental agony and litigation cost. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Mr. V. Vijayan (respondent herein) filed Consumer Complaint No.188/2014 with the District Commission praying for (a) refund of fee Rs.50000/- paid to the petitioner; (b) litigation charges of Rs.25000/-; (c) compensation of Rs.125000/- for causing anxiety and mental harassment; (d) USD1200 paid as fee to Global Strategic Business Consultancy; and (e) interest on the aforesaid amount @ 18% p.a. 4. The petitioner/opposite party approached the respondent/complainant and apprised that they are engage in the business of providing immigration and informed the complainant that due to their services, the respondent and his family will migrate to Canada within three years from the date of the agreement. As the respondent was interested to visit Canada, he entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 01.07.2015 by paying Rs.50000/- as consideration for service. On 01.07.2015 itself, the complainant also entered into an agreement with Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai at their local office at Greater Kailash, New Delhi and paid US$ 1200 to them. As per agreement, the petitioner was required to prepare and submit the case for immigration with the concerned department. The respondent had supplied documents sought by the appellant and also submitted the same with the Canadian High Commission, which were accepted on 05.09.2006 with file No.B-044092005. The petitioner did not take any action for a long time. After expiry of seven years, the Canadian High Commission sent mail dated 15.09.2011 to the complainant to process the new case for immigration. The respondent approached the petitioner for taking up the matter with the concerned authority for pursuing his old case, for which the petitioner demanded additional fee of CAV $700, for which the respondent did not agree and sought refund of the amount of US$ 1200 paid to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not refund the amount, the respondent filed Consumer Complaint No.188/2014 before the District Commission. 5. The petitioner filed its written reply and contested the complaint stating that the complainant had signed a consent letter dated 25.01.2012 to withdraw his case on the ground that his application for permanent residence in Canada may be affected by the order of Federal Court dated 20.06.2003. The petitioner performed its part of contract and provided requisite services. Clause 9 (c) of the agreement specifically provided that the petitioner will not refund the fee if the immigration application is withdrawn by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 6. District Commission, by judgment dated 23.06.2014, found that the opposite party did not provide any service to the complainant except submission of papers before Canadian High Commission for immigration. In the email dated 15.09.2011 sent by Canadian High Commission it was specified that the case was filed in July, 2005 and file No.B-044092005 was issued against the application. No further action was taken. The District Commission allowed the complaint with the direction to the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of US$ 1200 within 45 days with interest @ 9% p.a. alongwith Rs.25000/- for harassment and mental agony including the cost of litigation. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the opposite party preferred First Appeal No.734 of 2014 with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 12.01.2021 affirmed the order of the District Commission and dismissed the appeal. Hence the petitioner has filed this revision. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. There is concurrent finding of both the Fora below that after filing the papers before the Canadian High Commission the opposite party did not take any step to find out the progress in the matter. As per agreement, there were certain obligations of the opposite party like settlement services, overseas assignment/endorsement services, placement services etc. After filing the papers, the opposite party slept over the matter and ultimately after expiry of six years the Canadian High Commission sent an email to the complainant to file a fresh case for immigration. Thereafter, the opposite party asked the complainant to pay fees for hiring a lawyer for filing a suit in Canada Federal Court, which was not part of the agreement. The petitioner itself violated the terms of the agreement dated 01.07.2015 by not providing any service except submitting the papers with Canadian High Commission, which was clear deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. 9. So far as argument of the counsel for the petitioner that complaint was time barred and no application for condonation of delay was filed as such it has to be dismissed on the issue of limitation is concerned, Supreme Court in Transport Corporation of India vs. M/S. Veljan Hydrair Ltd. (2007) 3 SCC 142 held that for filing a consumer complaint the cause of action arises only after denial of the right. In the present case the complainant applied for permanent immigration on 01.07.2005 but the opposite party at no point of time has denied his right. It is only when the complainant gave notice for refund on 04.09.2013 then the limitation will be counted from that day and the complaint was filed within two years from 04.09.2013. 10. So far as the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction is concerned, although the petitioner has raised this point in written reply, but there is nothing on record that he has pressed this point either before the District Forum or before the State Commission. The petitioner has failed to show that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for exercise of territorial jurisdiction by the District Forum. Therefore, on this ground the order cannot be set aside. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order so as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. .O R D E R In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is dismissed. | 
