At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Hiren Dasan, Uday Gupta, Gulshan Jahan, Avinash Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: -----------
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member:
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.1.2015 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 308 of 2011 – Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Dr. Arup Kumar Kar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner obtained services of OP/respondent for permanent Canadian Visa for higher studies and settling in Canada. He paid Rs.30,000/- to OP and entered into an agreement. At the time of applying for immigration for permanent Canadian Visa it was made to understand that complainant will have to clear TOEFL with score of 580, but nowhere he was required to clear IELTS which became mandatory from January, 2002. It was further submitted that inspite of payment of Rs.1,12,900/- by complainant to OP, OP could not arrange Canadian Visa. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that agreement was executed on 30.3.2002. Complainant never provided required documents including IELTS result for forwarding to Canadian High Commission and became disinterested in going to Canada as per mail dated 3.12.2005. It was further submitted that complainant was duly intimated vide letter dated 27.7.2007 of Canadian High Commission to send documents within 90 days, but complainant did not respond, so, his application was rejected. It was further submitted that complainant was apprised for gestation period for processing of immigration application which takes around 5-6 years by the Canadian High Commission and complainant at the time of filling application was ready to wait, but later on he became disinterested; hence, there was no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund entire amount deposited by complainant with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and further directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of proof of deficiency on the part of OP in getting Canadian visa to the complainant, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.
5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that agreement for taking services for immigration visa to Canada was entered between the parties on 30.3.2002 and from January, 2002 IELTS examination clearance was made mandatory and admittedly the complainant did not submit any document clearing IELTS examination. In such circumstances, Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 26.8.2008 rejected case of the complainant. It further reveals that by mail dated 3.12.2005 complainant became disinterested in going to Canada on account of long period in getting immigration visa to Canada, so, he did not pass IELTS examination which was mandatory from January, 2002 for getting immigration visa to Canada. Paragraph 14 of complaint clearly reveals that complainant was no more interested in getting permanent visa for Canada and wanted refund of entire amount paid by him. As OP had already rendered service of processing for immigration visa and there was no deficiency on the part of OP, as per clause 10C of the agreement, OP was not liab
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
le to make refund of amount of fees paid by complainant and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint. 6. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.