1. The complainant/respondent hired the services of the petitioner for the purpose of migrating to Canada on a Work Visa. The complainant was holding a Degree of Bachelor of Commerce, at the time he hired or engaged the services of the petitioner. Since no visa was received by the complainant, despite he having paid Rs. 2,50,000 to the petitioner, he sought refund of the amount, which he paid to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner gave a firm assurance to him to arrange employment offer letter on payment of an additional amount of Rs. 1,50,000. The complainant thus made a total payment of Rs. 4.00 lacs to the petitioner in different stages. However, no work visa was issued to him nor was the amount paid by him to the petitioner refunded despite the petitioner having promised to apply the principle of “no visa no fee”, at the time its services were hired. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 with compensation.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, which did not dispute the receipt of Rs. 4,00,000 from the complainant and stated that initially they had arranged employment of Opinion Confirmation (AEO) for the employment of the complainant as Supervisor, Landscape and Horticulture. However, the application of the complainant was rejected by Canadian High Commission, on the ground that one of the requirements for the position was experience in the occupation of maintaining lawns, gardens etc., which the complainant did not possess. The petitioner then arranged an employment offer for the position of Book Keeper for the complainant, from Shell Canada Ltd., on 20.3.2009. The second application for grant of permanent residence was submitted by the complainant through another agency and was rejected on the ground that he had obtained insufficient points to qualify for permanent residence in Canada, the minimum requirement being 67 points whereas, the complainant had secured 57 points. It was further stated in the rejection letter that the arranged Employment Opinion Confirmation had English Language requirement whereas the complainant had only basic proficiency in written English and did not have English proficiency to meet the Language requirements of the Arranged Employment Opinion Confirmation. He was awarded zero marks each for Arranged Employment and the Adaptability.
3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. vide impugned order dated 23.10.2018, the State Commission dismissed the appeal thereby maintaining the direction of the District Forum to the Petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the complainant along with 9% interest, compensation quantified at Rs. 10,000 and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 3,000 .
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
5. It is a settled legal proposition that a Court/Tribunal will not be justified in interfering with a finding of fact recorded by the Fora below unless the said finding of fact is shown to be perverse, meaning thereby that the finding of fact is such, which no reasonable person could have returned on the basis of the facts available to it. Both, the District Forum as well as the State Commission have found the petitioner to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant. The said concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless it is shown to be perverse.
6. Admittedly, the qualifications of the complainant was only B.Com and the said qualification was known to the petitioner right from the time he approached the petitioner for assistance in obtaining permanent residency of Canada. The first Arranged Employment Opinion, arranged by the petitioner for the complainant was of no use to the complainant and the requisite permanent residency could not have been granted on the basis of the said Employment Opinion Confirmation since the complainant did not have any experience of supervision in Landscaping and Horticulture. This lack of experience in the above referred field was very well known to the petitioner. Despite that they arranged Employment Opinion Confirmation for employment in a field in which the complainant could not have been employed, he having no experience in the field. This was an act of deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering services to the complainant. The petitioner ought to have arranged an employment Opinion Confirmation in the field in which the complainant could reasonably expect to get employment.
7. The second employment offer secured by the petitioner for the complainant was in book keeping. The rejection order would show that the aforesaid position required English proficiency to meeting the language requirement of the Arranged Employment Opinion Confirmation, which the complainant did not possess. That is why he was given zero marks each under the heading “Arranged Employment and Adaptability”. Therefore, it is evident that even the second job offer arranged by the petitioner for the complainant was unsuitable and the complainant could not have reasonably expected to get permanent residency of Canada on the basis of such an offer. This was yet another deficiency in the services provided by the petitio
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ner to the complainant. Though, the second application for grant of permanent residency was submitted through another agency that would be immaterial considering that the application was based upon the employment offer obtained by the none other than the petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the concurrent finding recorded by the Fora below cannot be said to be perverse, so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.