w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Kamaljit Kaur v/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- J K CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066762

Company & Directors' Information:- WORLDWIDE CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27203CH1989PLC009878

Company & Directors' Information:- H S CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC044368

Company & Directors' Information:- S M CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC057293

Company & Directors' Information:- A & T WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ2013PTC074854

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA WORLDWIDE CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2001PTC113356

Company & Directors' Information:- K S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC045137

Company & Directors' Information:- V R WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ2012PTC070389

Company & Directors' Information:- WORLDWIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74140CH1997PLC019491

Company & Directors' Information:- E TO E CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63030KA2008PTC048557

Company & Directors' Information:- Y A CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1987PTC043225

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U67120WB1994PTC066521

Company & Directors' Information:- V G CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC054746

Company & Directors' Information:- L S D CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262781

Company & Directors' Information:- K .P. A. CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140WB2010PTC142889

Company & Directors' Information:- P O CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000WB2009PTC134219

Company & Directors' Information:- T K M CONSULTANCY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KL1998PTC012694

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U74140WB1986PTC040777

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K CONSULTANCY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2003PTC121113

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC208950

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K . CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140AS2006PTC008131

Company & Directors' Information:- M U S INDIA CONSULTANCY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2013PLC191253

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A SERVICES AND CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140OR2012PTC015010

Company & Directors' Information:- J R CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TN2015PTC102294

Company & Directors' Information:- R A D CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2011PTC224038

Company & Directors' Information:- S I M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC162468

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. K. M. CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC254940

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z IMMIGRATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KA1998PTC024407

Company & Directors' Information:- J. P. CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909GJ2002PTC040433

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999CH2005PTC027862

Company & Directors' Information:- P C CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1991PTC053835

Company & Directors' Information:- J A CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U93090MH2008PTC188284

Company & Directors' Information:- L M B CONSULTANCY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KL2002PTC015318

Company & Directors' Information:- K C IMMIGRATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999HR2003PTC035143

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y M CONSULTANCY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900KA2011PTC058364

Company & Directors' Information:- S K A CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2020PTC136502

Company & Directors' Information:- T C S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140RJ1995PTC011052

Company & Directors' Information:- K B M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TG2002PTC038403

Company & Directors' Information:- D M M CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140WB2010PTC151887

Company & Directors' Information:- C I S (INDIA) CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120BR2013PTC021019

Company & Directors' Information:- R I W CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KL2013PTC034174

Company & Directors' Information:- P S P CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2011PTC222022

Company & Directors' Information:- N. K. CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140HR2006PTC036471

Company & Directors' Information:- M E CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KL2012PTC031172

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1992PTC056149

Company & Directors' Information:- V S B D CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN2000PTC045338

Company & Directors' Information:- Z K CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL1993PTC052338

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND D CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210MH1982PTC027430

Company & Directors' Information:- D. G. CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB2008PTC129948

Company & Directors' Information:- B R IMMIGRATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140PB2010PTC033807

Company & Directors' Information:- G & B IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140PB2015PTC039687

Company & Directors' Information:- A S IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PB2004PTC027614

Company & Directors' Information:- V F C CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140RJ2015PTC048025

Company & Directors' Information:- B S IMMIGRATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040PB2008PTC031902

Company & Directors' Information:- E & C CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN2007PTC062260

Company & Directors' Information:- L & R CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140TN2009PTC072839

Company & Directors' Information:- P P CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210TN1982PTC009556

Company & Directors' Information:- N R 'S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210TN1986PTC013630

Company & Directors' Information:- P S WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2012PTC238923

Company & Directors' Information:- M F S CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH2008PTC177948

Company & Directors' Information:- D P CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140PN2008PTC132654

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND H CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74100MH2004PTC148618

Company & Directors' Information:- R V K CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2011PTC221273

Company & Directors' Information:- H A S D CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2011PTC222997

Company & Directors' Information:- H H S CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2013PTC250345

Company & Directors' Information:- M & W CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74910TN2004PTC053384

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120UP2010PTC042726

Company & Directors' Information:- Y V R CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098309

Company & Directors' Information:- J L I CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300UP2012PTC052649

Company & Directors' Information:- D R M B CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2014PTC201139

Company & Directors' Information:- M P CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74120WB1996PTC081085

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1985PTC039818

Company & Directors' Information:- S E S CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC170939

Company & Directors' Information:- G P R CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140CH2012PTC033622

Company & Directors' Information:- S K CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000JH2012PTC000348

Company & Directors' Information:- R & A CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67100DL2011PTC215340

Company & Directors' Information:- M J M CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC133200

Company & Directors' Information:- G S IMMIGRATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC137554

Company & Directors' Information:- A C G CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC140720

Company & Directors' Information:- H M S CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC201488

Company & Directors' Information:- D & G CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990DL2011PTC214142

Company & Directors' Information:- R H H H CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900AP2014PTC095348

Company & Directors' Information:- A & C CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KA2008PTC046754

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000HR2011PTC043455

Company & Directors' Information:- A P R CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000KA2014PTC073639

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51431GJ2014PTC078953

Company & Directors' Information:- J V WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909GJ2014PTC078156

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND L CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KL1997PTC011084

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KL2005PTC018496

Company & Directors' Information:- P E B CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KL2011PTC027680

Company & Directors' Information:- Z & H CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85190KL2008PTC023534

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74110GJ2014PTC078953

Company & Directors' Information:- D C D CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999RJ2020PTC071399

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND N CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2020PTC195417

Company & Directors' Information:- H P WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209RJ2021PTC076195

Company & Directors' Information:- S S G CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140TN1997PTC037763

Company & Directors' Information:- G R IMMIGRATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PB1998PTC021842

Company & Directors' Information:- KAUR & CO. IMMIGRATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040PB2008PTC032459

Company & Directors' Information:- V Z CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH2007PTC170875

Company & Directors' Information:- F T CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900CH2007PTC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- R S IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900CH2007PTC030976

Company & Directors' Information:- A. A. R. M. CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74140DL2006PTC150076

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M CONSULTANCY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140PB1985PTC006557

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES AND CONSULTANCY P. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC902217

    First Appeal No. 193 of 2014

    Decided On, 03 July 2014

    At, Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. DEV RAJ
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Arun Singla, Advocate. For the Respondents: Raman Walia, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:

1. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 23.4.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant entered into an Agreement dated 13.9.2003 (Annexure C-1) with Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3, at Patiala for retaining their services with regard to the preparation and submission of Immigration case for the grant of Permanent Resident Visa of Canada (Federal) in an independent Category, to her (complainant), her husband and two sons. The complainant filled-up the application form of the Opposite Parties, for the aforesaid purpose and furnished all details, about herself, her husband and her two sons. The complainant opted for Gold Package of the Opposite Parties, which included the pre-landing and post landing services. Accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Opposite Party No.3, in cash, against receipt Ann.C-2.

3. It was stated that, as per the requirement of the Opposite Parties, the complainant prepared and completed all the requisite documents, after getting the same attested from the Notary Public and spent around Rs.10,000/-. These documents were later on found to be of no use as the same had to be sent through e-mail only. Thereafter, on the demand of the Opposite Parties the complainant deposited Rs.33,000/- and Rs.5,000/- through demand draft(s) in the name of the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. It was further stated that as per the agreement, and, on demand of the Opposite Parties, the complainant deposited another sum of US$700 in the name of Global Strategic Business Consultancy (Opposite Party No.4), which was paid to Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 Company at Patiala. It was further stated that the complainant deposited another sum of US$ 105 in the name of Opposite Party No.4. It was further stated that since the complainant had applied in independent category, as per the agreement, she asked the Opposite Parties time and again about the progress of her case. The Opposite Parties assured that soon her application would be accepted. It was further stated that, in a normal immigration case, for permanent resident visa, the High Commission took 3-4 years.

4. It was further stated that on 20.10.2008, the complainant received a letter from the Patiala Office of Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3, regarding the submission of required documents, as demanded by the Canadian High Commission. As such, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents, to the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant paid another sum of Rs. 44,680/- in the name of Canadian High Commission, as Embassy fee of her sons, which was received by a representative of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. It was further stated that the complainant repeatedly asked the Opposite Parties, about the progress of her case, and she was assured that her case had already achieved progress. She was further told that the case was lying with the Canadian High Commission for approval and very soon they would be called for medical examination. However, the complainant was told by someone that all the cases for permanent resident visa of Canada had been rejected by the Canadian Government, but the Opposite Parties, continued to assure her that her case would be cleared.

5. When the complainant checked the website of the Canadian Government, her case was found to be dismissed and it had been clearly stated that the fees (which included the Visa Processing Fee + U.S. $60) paid by the complainant was refundable. It was further reflected on the website that the complainant would receive the same. However, the Opposite Parties neither informed the complainant about the dismissal of her visa case nor refunded the said amount. It was further stated that, in the Agreement executed between the parties, it was clearly stated that the complainant will not correspond with the respective Visa Office/High Commission, except through the Opposite Parties, and in case of doing so, all the fees deposited with the Opposite Parties would stand forfeited. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

6. In their joint reply, Opposite parties No.1 to 4, admitted that the Parties had entered into Contracts of Engagement vide Annexures R-2 & R-3 and they were bound by the terms and conditions of the same. It was stated that the Opposite Parties performed their duties, as per the Contracts of Engagement, and the application for Permanent Residency of Canada under Federal Skilled Worker Category was duly filed, on behalf of the complainant, vide Annexure R-4. The deposit of Rs.30,000/- with Patiala Branch of Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3, was admitted. It was further stated that, as per the information provided by the complainant, in the Assessment Form Annexure R-1, she was fully eligible for filing the case for Permanent Immigration to Canada. The amounts of US $700 and US$ 105 were received by M/s GSBC, Dubai directly and acknowledgement receipt was duly given in this regard. It was further stated that in Clause 8 of the Contract of Engagement Annexure.R-2, it was mentioned that the Opposite Parties shall not be responsible for any delay occurring during the process and the time shall not be the essence of Contract. It was further stated that the Canadian High Commission had given a period of 33 months, as the approximate time, likely to be taken for processing of the application. It was further stated that an amount of Rs. 44,680/- was paid by the complainant as visa processing fee of her sons as required and the same was duly deposited with the Canadian High Commission. It was further stated that the required information was sent to the Canadian High Commission and receipt dated 15.10.2008, for an amount of Rs.44,680/- deposited with it, was also received. It was further stated that the complainant was duly informed about the rejection of her application. The complainant, accordingly, applied for the return of Visa Processing Fee/landing Fees and later on, she received a demand draft of Rs.1,31,657.69/- alongwith letter dated 31.10.2013 Annexire.R-10. It was further stated that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.1,60,980/- towards the total professional fee of both the Companies, as also the Visa Processing Fee/Landing fee etc. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs.1,31,657.69 had been received by her through draft, whereas the retainer/professional fee was non-refundable, as per the Contract of Engagement. It was further stated that the application of the complainant was terminated by the Canadian High Commission, on account of chang in the Immigration Law, vide letter dated 24.5.2013 Annexure R-9. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

7. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. in the opening para of the instant order.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

10. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

11. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant received Rs.1,31,657.69 out of the amount of Rs.1,60,980/- paid by her to the Opposite parties for processing her case for permanent resident visa of Canada, but the remaining amount was not refunded. He further submitted that when the application of the complainant for permanent resident visa of Canada was rejected by the High Commission of Canada, the Opposite Parties were duty bound to refund the entire amount received by them and they could not retain any amount out of the same. He further submitted that even the Opposite Parties did not submit the papers for permanent resident visa to the Canadian High Commission in time. He further submitted that even the Opposite Parties did not intimate the complainant with regard to the rejection of visa application, on account of change in law. He further submitted that the complainant applied for visa in 2003, and it was only in 2013 that her application for visa was rejected. He further submitted that she suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and, as such, was liable to be compensated. He further submitted that there was deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Contracts of Engagements (skilled category) Annexures R-2 and R-3 were executed between the parties. He further submitted that the case of the complainant, her husband and two sons for permanent resident visa of Canada under Federal skilled worker category alongwith the requisite documents was submitted to the Canadian High Commission, but the same was rejected by the said Commission on account of change in law. He further submitted that as per the Contracts of Engagement retainer/professional fee was not refundable. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.1,31,657.69 out of Rs.1,60,980/- had already been refunded to the complainant. He further submitted that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

13. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant engaged the services of the Opposite Parties. There is no dispute, between the parties, that Contracts of Engagement (Skilled Category) Annexures R-2 and R-3 were executed between the parties. Thus, the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the Contracts. It is not the case of the complainant that her case for permanent resident visa was not submitted to the Canadian High Commission by the Opposite Parties alongwith the requisite documents and after completing all the formalities. Once the case of the complainant, her husband and two sons for permanent resident visa of Canada was submitted by the Opposite Parties, as per the terms and conditions of the Contracts of Engagement, to the Canadian High Commission, then it was for the latter to decide, as to whether, they were to be granted visa or not. No evidence was produced, on record, that there was deficiency, on the part of the Opposite Parties, in preparing/completing the documents and the case. There is also no evidence, on record, that the visa application of the complainant was rejected, on the ground, that proper assessment of the documents enclosed therewith was not made by the Opposite Parties. Since the visa application was rejected by the Canadian High Commission, on account of change in law, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said, that there was deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties.

14. Coming to the question of refund, it may be stated here that the parties were bound by the terms and condition of the Contracts of Engagement. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was received by Opposite Party No.3, as professional fee/retainer fee for preparation, completion and submission of visa application alongwith the requisite documents to the Canadian High Commission. As stated above, the application for permanent resident visa alongwith the requisite documents was submitted to the Canadian High Commission. Clause 3 of Contract of Engagement (skilled category) Annexure R-2 reads as under:-

'3. Professional Fees of the Company

In consideration of the company’s professional services, the client agrees and undertakes to pay the company a non-refundable sum of Rs.30,000(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to be paid at the time of retaining services in the shape of cash……….'

15. It is evident from Clause 3, extracted above, that professional fee obtained by the Opposite Parties, to the extent of Rs.30,000/-, was non-refundable. Had the Opposite Parties not submitted the application of the complainant after due assessment of her eligibility alongwith the relevant documents, to the Canadian High Commission, it would have certainly been held that they did not provide the proper professional services, and, as such, were not entitled to retain the professional fee/ retainer fee. But, in the instant case, the Opposite Parties submitted the application of the complainant alongwith the requisite documents after due assessment, to the Canadian High Commission for grant of permanent resident visa of Canada, but the same was rejected, on account of change in law. No deficiency whatsoever, could, thus, be attributed to the Opposite Parties. The District Forum was thus, right in holding that the amount of Rs.30,000/- could not be refunded to the complainant. The District Forum was also right in holding that by not refunding the same the Opposite Parties were not at all deficient in rendering service.

16. Annexure R-3 is the Contract of Engagement, which was executed between the complainant and Opposite Party No.4. Clause 7 with regard to refund, of this Agreement is reproduced hereunder:-

'Refund

7. The Company undertakes to provide full refund to the client of the professional fee paid by the client to the Company excluding processing fee levied by the processing Visa Office and other expenses incurred by the client in the event the Visa Officer rejects client’s case and the Company is unable to revert such decision by any means which may include Judicial Review process. This clause is not applicable, if the rejection is due to misrepresentation, fraud, criminal, medical or Canadian/New Zealand/Australian national security reasons, changes in Immigration Rules and Regulations due to which the client would no longer qualify for immigration to the destination country………

17. It is evident, from the afore-extracted Clause 7 of the Contract of Engagement Annexure R-3, that the Company undertook to provide full refund to the client of the professional fee paid by her to it excluding processing fee levied by the processing Visa Office and other expenses incurred by the client, in the event the Visa Officer rejected the client’s case and the Company was unable to revert such decision by any means which may include Judicial Review process. It is further evident that this clause was not applicable, if the rejection was due to misrepresentation, fraud, criminal, medical or Canadian/New Zealand/Australian national security reasons, changes in Immigration Rules and Regulations due to which the client would no longer qualify for immigration to the destination Country

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

. In the instant case it is evident from Annexure R-9, issued by the citizenship and Immigration Canada that the application of the complainant had been terminated/rejected by operation of law. It was also mentioned in the letter aforesaid that the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, became law on June 29, 2012. Under this legislation, Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) applications made before February 27, 2008 were terminated by operation of law, if a selection decision had not been made by an Immigration Officer before March 29, 2012. In the instant case, the application of the complainant for permanent resident visa of Canada was prepared in 2003 and submitted in 2004. Thus her application was submitted to the Canadian High Commission before 27 February, 2008. Her application was terminated on account of change in law. Therefore, no deficiency, whatsoever, could be attributed to Opposite Party No.4. Under these circumstances, Opposite Party No.4 was also not liable to refund the professional fee/retainer fee. The District Forum was also right in holding so. 18. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 19. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 20. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 21. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 22. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
O R