DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.601 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  19.04.2016                                             Date of decision   :  01.08.2018

Manjit Sharma wife of Shri Khushal Singh son of
Shri Hardit Singh, resident of House No.1530, Gillco Valley, Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

…….Complainant

Vs

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., South East Asia Operation, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali 160055, Punjab India, through its authorised officer.

                                                            ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Karnail Singh, counsel for complainant.

                Shri K.S. Rupal, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant for getting visa for UK availed services of OP by depositing Rs.61,525/- on 23.04.2016. Formalities of submission of documents before the authorities were complied with by the complainant. However, the authority of the OP did not place on record documents of complainant in time.  Visitor visa even was refused to complainant due to fault of OP Company for not submitting requisite documents. Even paid amount has not been refunded to complainant for the reasons best known to OP. Complainant has been intentionally harassed by OP. Monetary loss of Rs.30,000/- alleged to be sustained by complainant in dream of settling abroad. In this way complainant entitled to claim total amount of Rs.91,525/- including the amount of compensation and damages from OP.

2.             In reply submitted by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that refusal of visitor visa by UK Visas & Immigration Authorities was done regarding which information was given to complainant. Complainant herself failed to convince the concerned authorities about her return back to India after her visit to UK. Visa Officer held as if complainant failed to convince him with respect to her significant economic and family ties with India. Even it was opined by concerned authority as if complainant not seeking entry genuinely as a visitor to UK. Rather apprehension was expressed as if complainant not intending to leave back UK at the end of visa period. Requirements contained in Appendix V 4.2 (a) & (c) of UK Immigration Rules even have not been complied with by complainant as per observations of the Visa Officer. Earlier visitor visa to complainant refused twice by UK Visas & Immigration Authorities vide letters dated 21.01.2016 and 08.02.2016 on the ground of inability of complainant to adduce authentic proof of her marriage with Khushal Singh as well as  regarding availability of funds and adequate accommodation etc. Proof of dissolution of previous marriage even was not adduced by complainant earlier and that is why visa authorities clarified that future UK visa applications likely to be refused unless change of circumstances shown by complainant. After explaining all these facts to complainant, it was disclosed to her that as per assessment of OP, case of complainant for visa is a weak case. Application of the complainant was duly prepared by OP in best possible manner alongwith documents provided by complainant. OP paid due attention towards the previous application forms filled by complainant for analyzing the reasons of earlier refusals and thereafter complainant was asked to furnish the forms and letters vide request letter dated 03.05.2016. OP even examined the discrepancies found in the documents submitted by complainant. Complainant was required to provide explanation of the discrepancies vide e-mail dated 12.05.2016. Complainant personally visited OP for providing the documents alongwith clarification with respect to the discrepancies. Complete filled application forms were shown to complainant and her husband before submitting the same and for eliciting their views as to whether any amendment/correction needed or not. After getting affirmation of the submitted information from complainant and her husband, their signatures were obtained on the draft application on 20.05.2016. So application of the complainant was duly submitted in the best possible manner, but the same was refused in view of requirements of Appendix V 4.2 (a) & (c)  of UK Visas & Immigration Authorities. OP has no domain over the decision of the concerned authorities with respect to acceptance/rejection of any visa application. Complainant paid amount of Rs.51,525/- only including the service tax of amount of Rs.6,525/-. Amount of Rs.61,525/- never paid by complainant. Amount of Rs.45,000/- only was paid to OP because the balance amount of Rs.6,525/-, as taxes was to go to the Govt. exchequer on account of service tax, education cess etc. This taxation amount of Rs.6,525/- is totally non refundable as per Clause 10 (i) of Contract of Engagement dated 23.04.2016. On retention of services of OP by complainant, OP started providing due services like that of advising complainant about immigration category; preparation of documents in the proper format; requirement of immigration authorities and that of counseling etc. Even though complainant is not entitled to any amount of refund, but despite that as a goodwill gesture, OP has disbursed amount of Rs.20,000/- through cheque dated 28.12.2016 presented in this Forum, to complainant.  In view of Clause-16 of Contract of Engagement, jurisdiction remains of courts at Chandigarh only and moreover matter likely to be referred to arbitration. Other averments of the complaint denied except that of e-mail communication of date 04.08.2016 and 05.08.2016 etc.

3.             Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and thereafter closed evidence.  On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Rajiv Bajaj, authorised representative of OP alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-13 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments in this case submitted by both the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             From the oral and submitted arguments first contentious issue remains as to whether complainant deposited amount of Rs.61,525/- or Rs.51,525/-. Perusal of retainer fee receipt Ex.C-2 = Ex.OP-9 shows as if amount of Rs.26,527.07 N.P.  was deposited by complainant with OP on 23.04.2016. However, perusal of Ex.C-4 = enclosure of Ex.OP-9 shows as if amount of Rs.24,999.93 N.P. was more deposited by complainant with OP as retainer fee. Total of these amounts of Rs.26,525.07 N.P. and Rs.24,999.93 N.P. comes to Rs.51,525/-. So certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP has force that the evidence produced by complainant and OP proves as if amount of Rs.51,525/-was deposited by complainant. Complainant unable to point out any other document for showing that she paid more amount and as such submission advanced by complainant has no force that in fact amount of Rs.61,525/- was deposited by complainant.

6.             After going through Ex.C-2 it is made out that an amount of Rs.3,243.24 N.P. charged as service tax on amount of Rs.23,166/- by OP from complainant, but Rs.115.83 N.P. as Swatch Bharat Cess. Likewise perusal of Ex.C-4 reveals that an amount of Rs.3,056.76 N.P. charged as service tax on principal amount of Rs.21,834/-, but Rs.109.17 N.P. as Swatch Bharat Cess amount. As amounts of service tax and Swatch Bharat Cess to go into the Govt. Treasury and as such certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP has force that amount of Rs.6,525/-  of service tax and Swatch Bharat Cess is non refundable.  So claim of complainant for refund at the most is of Rs.45,000/-.

7.             Rs.20,000/- out of the above contentious amount of Rs.45,000/- has already been refunded to complainant by OP by presenting cheque No.415736 dated 28.12.2016 on 29.12.2016. Statement of complainant in that respect was recorded and that amount has been got encashed by complainant, is not disputed. So at the most refund, if any, will remain of amount of Rs.25,000/-, but that too in case entitlement of complainant is found with respect to that as per factual and legal position.

8.             Perusal of Ex.C-1 = Ex.OP-1 and further of Ex.OP-2 shows that earlier applications of complainant for  visitor visa were declined by UK Visas & Immigration Authorities for reasons that complainant has not supplied clear evidence as to how her husband will support her financially during her stay in UK. Moreover through Ex.OP-1, it was found by UK Visas & Immigration Authorities that complainant had not supplied the satisfactory material for showing her significant economic and family ties with India. It was also found through Ex.OP-1 as if complainant is not genuinely seeking entry as a visitor. So in view of recording of non satisfaction qua requirements of Appendix V 4.2 (a) & (c) of UK Immigration Rules, application for visitor visa of complainant was refused through Ex.OP-1. Attempt for identical requisite visitor visa request of complainant was refused through Ex.OP-2 on 21.01.2016. Services of OP in this case were availed by complainant w.e.f. 23.04.2016 is a fact borne from contents of complaint itself and as such virtually services of OP were availed by complainant after declining of her requests for visitor visa twice by UK Visas & Immigration Authorities through letters Ex.C-1 = Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2.  Perusal of Ex.OP-3 also reveals that earlier request of complainant for visitor visa was declined by UK Visas & Immigration Authorities on 08.02.2016 for the same reasons of non compliance of requirements of Para 4.2 (a) & (c) of Appendix V of Immigration Rules for visitor visa.

9.             Even though complainant availed services of OP after declining of her request twice for visitor visa, despite that OP took due steps for calling upon complainant to submit requisite documents and even got the forms properly filled. Check list of the requisite documents sought from complainant on 03.05.2016 by OP is contained in Ex.OP-4. After receipt of those documents, complainant was disclosed through e-mail dated 12.05.2016 Ex.OP-5 as if three discrepancies with respect to the submitted documents exists. Those discrepancies pointed out in Ex.OP-5 pertains to the fact that (1) bank statement provided by OBC not stamped and singed; (2) divorce decree required and (3) confirmation of the current status of spouse of complainant in UK also required. Besides, through Ex.OP-5 it was mentioned that name of first husband of complainant still reflected in the passport and that credit card details for payment also required. Likewise after having sitting with complainant, some discrepancies again reiterated through e-mail letter dated 14.05.2016 placed on record as Ex.OP-6. So it is obvious that this documentary evidence produced on record shows that virtually complainant was advised properly regarding requirements of submission of documents.

10.            Confirmation application Ex.OP-7 containing information about travel and passport of complainant was got signed from husband of complainant is a fact borne from handwritten note of husband of complainant recorded on the foot of Ex.OP-7. So certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP has force that before submitting the visa application on behalf of complainant, contents of draft application were got verified from complainant and her husband. It was after getting of such confirmation through Ex.OP-7 on 20.05.2016 that online application containing biographic details and travel date of complainant was submitted with UK Visas & Immigration Authorities, is a fact borne from contents of Ex.OP-8. Visa application fee of Rs.8,700/- was payable for this online application is a  fact borne from contents of Ex.OP-8 itself. As this visa application fee to go to UK Visas & Immigration Authorities, and as such certainly this amount of Rs.8,700/- remains non refundable after the same went out of hands of OP.

11.            Mention of received amount of Rs.51,525/- referred above, also made in the covering page of Contract of Engagement Ex.OP-10 at Page-2. It is specifically mentioned at Page 3 of Ex.OP-10 that retainer fee for availing services of OP Company is Rs.45,000/-. This Contract of Engagement containing 13 pages was got signed from complainant on each and every page and as such certainly complainant was made aware of the terms and conditions on which services of OP availed by her. 

12.            As per Clause-1 of Contract of Engagement Ex.OP-10 duties of OP Company are to assist the client in preparation of his/her case for visitor visa; to review and identify submission of required documents and supporting evidence as well as to assist the client in keeping the file upto date. These duties mentioned in Clause-1 of Ex.OP-10 at Page-4 were duly performed by OP because it assisted the complainant in submission of online application; seeking requisite documents and supporting evidence and assisting her in getting the file upto date by discussing the shortcomings even, as referred above by referening to the mentioned documents. As OP performed its duties and as such in view of the fact that acceptance or non acceptance of visitor visa application is in the domain of UK Visas & Immigration Authorities, certainly OP cannot be blamed, if the visitor visa to complainant refused. Even at Page-6 of Ex.OP-10 mention made as if the retainer fee payable for availing services of OP Company is Rs.45,000/- and as such certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP has force that Rs.45,000/- were received as retainer fee by OP from complainant. Clause-4 at Page-6 of Ex.OP-10 lays that payments by OP company will be accepted from its clients through demand draft/cheque/credit card/debit card/wire transfer and no cash is acceptable and as such it is obvious that virtually only those payments can be held to be made by complainant to OP as are paid  through these modes or through receipts issued by OP. In Clause 4 (iii) of Ex.OP-10 it is specifically mentioned that Govt. taxes and levies including service tax will be charged extra as applicable in addition to the fee charged by OP Company. Visa processing fee in addition to fee of Company is payable by client as per Clause-8 of Ex.OP-10. This visa immigration fee is to be paid to immigration authorities and as such complainant not entitled to seek refund of that fee from the Company, is a condition laid down in clause-8 of Ex.OP-10. In view of this, it is obvious that claim for refund of visa processing fee against OP not entertainable. Moreover, Clause-10 of Ex.OP-10 provides that amount of taxes paid shall be non refundable and as such certainly complainant not entitled for staking claim with respect to amount of Rs.6,525/- claimed by OP on account of service tax or Swatch Bharat Cess etc., as referred in detail above.  Even as per Clause-12 (a) of Ex.OP-10, Company (OP) not to refund any of the total fees, if the case of visitor visa gets rejected after the client corresponds or communicates directly with the visa office without written consent of the company and its associates. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that such communication was directly made by complainant with visa office.

13.            Through Ex.OP-12, OP was blamed for refusal of visitor visa of complainant on account of its negligence. Despite these allegations, OP took steps for getting visitor visa fee refunded from immigration authorities, is a fact borne from perusal of letter Ex.OP-13 and thereafter amount of Rs.20,000/- was refunded to the complainant through cheque Ex.OP-11 dated 28.12.2016, referred above. So present is a case in which not only OP provided due services to complainant as per terms of agreement, but even it helped complainant in getting the visa processing fee refunded by applying to immigration authorities/visa office in UK and as such certainly OP not liable to pay any more amount to complainant except the one, which it has already refunded as a goodwill gesture. Complainant herself should have remained aware in submitting due information, more so when her earlier two requests for visitor visa were turned down before availing the services of OP. Had that precaution been taken by complainant, even after assessment of case of complainant as a weak case by OP,  then complainant would not have proceeded further in the matter, but she chose to go ahead and as such fault in that respect also remains with complainant in not backing out at earliest. Moreover, due services rendered by OP to complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service on part of OP. So complaint merits dismissal, more so when ratio of case titled as Aditya Kumar Vs. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.), 2014(1) CPJ 391 (NC), lays that if the OP company performed its duty of ensuring that all documentation was completed before sending to the concerned High Commission, then the complaint deserves to be dismissed for refund of visa processing fee, more so when deficiency in service not proved. Same is the position in the case before us because here due services as per contractual obligation were performed by OP, as discussed in detail above.

14.            In case titled as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ranjodh Singh & Anr. 2015(3) CPJ 544 (NC)  it was found that rejection of visitor visa application of complainant took place because of non rendering of due services by WWICS. After going through ratio of above cited case, it was made out that complainant concerned was not given guidance for the purpose of obtaining visa because he was not disclosed as to how much years he has to remain in foreign land for study purposes. In action on the part of WWICS was found to be amounting to rendering deficient services in cited case because gullible villagers were not guided properly, but this is not the position in the case before us because here complainant is fully aware of the intricacies of requirements of obtaining visitor visa after rejection of her applications twice before availing services of OP. So benefit from ratio of case of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ranjodh Singh & Anr. (supra) cannot be availed by complainant. As due services rendered by OP to complainant and as such complaint merits dismissal, but without any order as to costs.

 15.           As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

August 01, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                       (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member