YOUSUF ALI PEEDIKAPARAMBAN S/O. ABDU P.P. HAJIYAR PALLY, MALAPPURAM Vs. M/S. WORLD WIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. AND 7 OTHERS A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 20.06.2016 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 353 of 2013.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/complainant are that on the assurances made by the respondent/opposite parties the petitioner contacted respondent no. 4/OP no. 4 who directed the petitioner/complainant to approach respondent no. 5/OP no. 5. The respondents claimed that they are the world's largest global re-settlement solutions company delivering excellence in industrial knowledge, world class infrastructure and comprehensive resettlement package, consisting of immigration, placement and settlement services with offices at Cochin and all over India and also overseas offices in several countries. The petitioner/complainant is a graduate having MSW and was working as a Coordinator on contract basis. On 008.2009 the resume of the petitioner was received by the respondent Respondent no. 5/OP 5, at Cochin Office, instructed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.55,000.00 in advance and to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000.00 after one month and further deposit of 1500 US Dollars, they also provided a leaflet to the petitioner. The petitioner remitted Rs.55,000.00 on 11.08.2009. As per the demand draft drawn on Andhra Bank and respondent no.5/OP 5 issued a receipt no. 118608 dated 11/08/2009. A check list was provided on remittance of the amount. The complainant prepared all the documents as per check list and duly attested through M/s Sree Sai Documentation on remitting the amount of Rs.8,000.00 and the fee receipt was issued in this regard. Thereafter the petitioner had to remit Rs.20,063.00 on 29/10/2009 against which the respondent no. 5/OP no.5 issued receipt also. On the same day itself an amount of Rs.73,375.00 (1500 US Dollars) was also remitted as per the direction of the respondents and all the documents were submitted on 30/10/2009. The complainant received the receipt for 1500 US Dollars from the respondent no. 6/OP 6 on 7/11/2009. Intimation was received from respondent no.8/OP no. 8 to submit an application which was duly filled by respondents before the Danish Visa Application Centre, Chennai directly. The respondent no.8 again instructed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.16,427/- to VFS Global Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Meantime the respondent received a call from Royal Danish Company, New Delhi to attend an interview. On 11/6/2010 the Royal Danish Company, New Delhi informed that the application submitted by the petitioner had been rejected. An appeal was filed before the Embassy which was also rejected. The petitioner made repeated enquiries and at last the petitioner was called upon to meet at the respondent no. 5's office and to settle the matter. It has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that in order to obtain work permit in Denmark under Green Card Scheme there was no need for service of a third party. The petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,87,865.00, which he had to arrange by availing loan and pledging gold ornaments. The respondents accepted consideration without providing proper service to the petitioner, they fraudulently grabbed money from people giving fraudulent promises. The complaint was filed for getting the refund of the amount expended i.e. Rs.1,87,865.00 from the respondents and also Rs.1 Lakh towards mental agony and also for Rs.1 Lakh for the deficiency in service. The respondent nos. 1 to 8 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. A petition to delete the respondent no. 6 from the party array was allowed by Forum Below.

(3.) The respondents except the respondent no.6, filed joint version contending that the petitioner had not impleaded the respondent no. 6 who was a separate legal entity and with whom the petitioner had deposited 1500 US Dollars vide receipt dated 7/11/2009. It was contended that the respondent no. 6 was a necessary party to the proceedings. The other respondents have no connection with regard to the amount of 1500 US Dollars paid by the petitioner to respondent no.6. It was admitted that the respondent no.1 is a company having branches all over India and 14 International Offices having its registered office at New Delhi and Head Office at Chandigarh. The respondent no. 1/company are professionals who have knowledge about the immigration laws and formalities regarding migration to European Countries, Australia, Canada etc. The respondents assist the candidates in processing and preparation of immigration file, verify their credentials, supplying with required documents and communicate with the respective authorities and High Commission. It was contended that 100% guarantee of migration cannot be given as it was subject to the satisfaction of the authorities in the respective embassies. The migration depends upon educational/technical qualifications, experience and ability of the petitioners. The Global Strategic Business Consultancy was one such company providing the facility for the migrants. The application was to be submitted in person at Chennai and it was mandatory as a legal requirement. The petitioner had not produced the full extract of the rejection letter issued from the Embassy. The respondent prepared the draft of appeal to be submitted before the Appellate Authority on behalf of the petitioner. The performance of the petitioner at the interview was a criterion to be decided by the officials of the Embassy. The professional fees and other amounts were paid to third parties for the preparation of the documents and the respondents are not liable as not remitted any money with the respondents. The petitioner's case was rejected on the ground that he failed to qualify as per his qualifications and could not succeed in the interview. The inability to qualify for the interview cannot be treated as a deficiency on the part of respondents. The entire process of migration with regard to Green Card Scheme for Denmark was a lengthy process and it depends upon approval from authorities. The conditions in the contract of engagement were binding on the parties and the petitioner had accepted the same. As per clause 10 of the contract it was stated that the services provided by the company being professional in nature the entire fees was non-refundable. The petitioner's case could not be processed not due to deficiency on the part of respondents but on the petitioner's failure in the interview and the petitioner was not entitled for any refund as regards the retainer fee and professional fee. The petitioner suppressed material facts and the complaint is only to be dismissed.