NAVNEET CHHINA Vs. SUNRISE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS PVT LTD
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2010-4-5
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 29,2010

Navneet Chhina Appellant
VERSUS
Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 13.10.2009 passed in complaint case No. 615 of 2009 : Ms. Navneet Chhina v. Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that in response to an advertisement of OP, he visited OP for immigration to Australia and the complainant was assessed eligible for Australian Resident Visa as a Hairdresser. It was averred that the complainant entered into an agreement wijh the OP vide agreement dated 5.3.2007 (C -1) and fee of Rs.59,000/ - was settled to be paid by the complainant. As per the complain ant, he paid an amount of Rs.10,000/ - on 5.3.2007 whereas a sum of Rs.11,000/ - was paid on 28.2.2007. The complainant supplied all the necessary documents on receipt of letter dated 12.4.2007 and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000. On 12.4.2007, it was averred, the complainant paid another sum of Rs. 71,000/ - to the OP for preparation of Demand Draft of Australian Embassy, which was duly acknowledged by the Australian Embassy. The case of the complainant was that he was shocked to receive letter dated 28.6.2008 from OP informing her that her application for residence visa to Australia had been refused by the Department of Immigration Citizenship of Australia Govt, vide order dated 26.6.2008. It was the case of the complainant that he was wrongly assessed eligible by the OP, which amounted to deficiency in service as OP never apprised her about the training certificate under the Apparentership Act. As per the complainant, she had suffered a loss of Rs. 1,07,000/ -, which she had unnecessarily paid to the OP as fee and embassy charges. Terming the act and conduct of OP as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, the complainant had filed the present complaint.
(3.) THE version of OP is that the complainant was required to fulfil 120 points against which, she fulfilled 130 points as required by the Department of immigration and Citizenship but inspite of positive assessment report of TRA dated 3.4.2007, the Department of immigration and Citizenship has rejected/refused her application unjustifiably without any verification of documents submitted by the complainant along with her application. As per the OP, the rejection of complainant's application was not on qualifying criteria of Department of Immigration and Citizenship. OP also stated that the assessment of the complainant done by it was absolutely correct and she was found eligible for residency visa of Australia as Hairdresser. OP next stated that the case of the complainant was not covered under Clause 15 of the Contract of Engagement as her case had not been rejected on merits and hence, she was not entitled to full refund of processing/professional fee paid excluding processing fee of Rs. 10,000/ -. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The learned District Forum in its analysis of the complaint recorded in the impugned order that it was prima facie clear from the pre -migration skills assessment form (C -28) and which was duly accepted that OP had assessed the eligibility of the complainant correctly and decision taken was duly conveyed though letter dated 28.8.2006. In the view of the learned District Forum, the assessments coming from two different sides i.e. dated 28.8.2006 and decision dated 7.3.2008 showed that there was no deficiency on the part of OP in giving proper advice to the complainant in preparing the documents and submitting the same to the proper authorities for migration of the complainant. The learned District Forum next recorded that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia rejected tne application vide order dated 26.6.2006, which was duly conveyed to the complainant on 28.6.2008 vide Annexure C -29. Thus, the learned District Forum found no deficiency in service on the part of OP in assessing the complainant eligible for immigration to Australia and also in processing her case and sending the same to the authorities concerned.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.