Ludhiana | Consumer forum directs immigration agency to refund ₹1.5 lakh for not securing visa

Deficiency of service costs an immigration consultancy after the Ludhiana consumer forum directed it to refund ₹1,59,950 and pay ₹10,000 as compensation for not securing visa for complainant despite submitting all requisite documents, and also failing to inform her about the same

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a travel consultancy, which was unable to secure a visa for the complainant, to refund ₹1,59,950 and pay ₹10,000 as compensation on grounds of providing deficient service.

The Ludhiana consumer forum, in its order, observed that it could not be disputed that the complainant had provided all the documentation, and the arrangement with a company in Dubai for a job offer had been made through the immigration consultancy. (Representative Image/Ht File)

The complainant, Rajwinder Kaur of Payal of Ludhiana, had said that she had cleared the IELTS exam, which is a prerequisite for settling abroad, and had approached the consultancy for securing a visa. The immigration consultancy had assured her that a visa would be arranged within six to eight months and she had paid ₹6,59,950 for the same. However, the company was unable to secure a visa for her despite submitting all requisite documents, and also failed to inform her about the same.

Citing deficiency of service on part of the immigration consultancy, Kaur sought complete refund of the amount she had paid along with ₹2 lakh compensation and ₹22,000 as litigation expense.

However, the consultancy firm’s counsel said the complainant had paid ₹5,67,500 for express-entry employment facilitation in Canada, of which ₹5 lakh had already been returned to her. “The complainant had paid an additional ₹2,10,000 to the respondent, of which ₹29,399 had been given to the state exchequer as service tax, which is non-refundable. There has been no deficiency of service or negligence,” said the counsel, adding that their client had immediately started working on the immigration case.

“The respondent assessed the complainants’ documents as per the national occupation classification and uploaded the complainant’s documents on Job Bank Canada for arranging a job offer. However, the complainant had failed to receive a job offer so far as the employers were yet to go through a resume, “ the counsel added.

The commission, in its order, observed that it could not be disputed that the complainant had provided all the documentation, and the arrangement with a company in Dubai for a job offer had been made through the consultancy.