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



Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited v/s Devinder Chauhan

    Revision Petition No. 4011 of 2010 in First Appeals Nos. 391 of 2009 & 480 of 2009

    Decided On, 25 May 2011

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINAY KUMAR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Sunil Goyal, Advocate. For the Respondent: In person.



Judgment Text

Vinay Kumar, Member:

1. The present revision petition is against the order of the Himanchal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 391 of 2009 and F.A. No. 480 of 2009.

2. These were two cross appeals filed by OP. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the OP/Worldwilde Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS Ltd.) and allowed the appeal of the Complainant, Devinder Chauhan. The State Commission has held that the Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 97,000 with 9% interest from the date of the complaint. The Complainant was also allowed compensation of Rs. 15,000 and cost of Rs. 3,000. In fact, the State Commission, with certain modification has agreed with the view of the District Forum allowing the complaint and ordering the refund in favour of the Complainant.

3. The revision petitioner has sought to challenge the impugned order first, on the ground that the complaint filed in the month of June 2005, was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as his application for immigration was itself made to the Canadian High Commission five years earlier, in March, 2000. This plea has no substance because the cause of action arose much later when the complainant was informed in April 2005 that the interview was scheduled on 30th May, 2005.

4. In fact, the representation of likelihood of interview within 18 to 24 months, made by the appellant in his letter of 6.5.2000 (at page 41 of the Paper Book), proved to be one without any basis. The interview was scheduled five years later. The State Commission has rightly observed that the Appellant/OP was not in a position to make such a commitment when he was aware that he does not control the date and the date for interview had to be fixed by Canadian authorities. The State Commission has observed that when this question was posed to him, the Counsel for OP had no answer.

5. The main ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the Complainant had himself written on 6.6.2005 expressing his inability to attend the interview on 30.5.2005 on the ground that he was suffering from fever. A copy of this letter is at page 57 of the paper book. This matter was taken up on his behalf with the Canadian High Commission through a letter of 18.6.2005. In between, the Canadian High Commission had already written to the Complainant on 1.6.2005, that his application for visa under the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act had been rejected.

6. The State Commission has rightly inferred that the OP can be presumed to be aware that within 24 months the Canadian Authority would have taken a view for fixing date for his interview. In this background, the plea of the OP, regarding failure of the Complainant to appear for interview, has been considered by the State Commission as a ploy for seeking a further payment $ 1,600 US. This money was sent to an agency whose identity, as an agency independent of the OP, was not established before the State Commission. Therefore, the State Commission was right in concluding this amount of 1,600 US Dollar needed to be refunded to the Complainant. The service charge of Rs. 25,000 has also been considered refundable as it was for a service that the Revision Petitioner/OP was in no position to render. The State Commission has observed that if the Complainant had any idea that the interview would take more than double of the assured time, he may not have availed of the services of the appellant/OP. We are in agreement with the view of the State Commission.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

7. We, therefore, do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, that could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.
O R