ARSHLEEN GREWAL Vs. ARSHLEEN GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Arshleen Grewal, challenging the order dated 04.05.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.119/2017.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ complainant applied for Permanent Resident Visa for Canada and took the services of the respondents/ opposite parties as professional consultant. The opposite parties and the complainant entered into two engagement agreements, one with the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and other with M/s. GSBC Dubai. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.84,270/- to the opposite parties and $ 800 to M/s. GSBC Dubai through the opposite parties. It is the allegation of the complainant that the fees was paid on 19.08.2014 and the documents were also submitted to the opposite parties for further processing and sending them to Canadian Embassy, however, the opposite parties did not take any interest and when complainant asked about the progress of the case on 26.11.2014, she got to know that the case was not even processed. The complainant again submitted all the documents to the opposite parties on 07.12.2014. She was called to the opposite parties' office on 22.12.2014 for signing the papers. Then the papers were submitted on 23.12.2014 to the Canadian Embassy. She received rejection of her application vide letter dated 16.03.2015 from the Canadian Embassy. She has alleged in the complaint that her application has been rejected as there was a capping of such visas to a number of 25,000 and her application was received late after the capping was complete. The complainant then asked for the refund of the fees paid to the opposite parties, however, the opposite parties denied any refund on the ground that both parties are bound by the agreement and agreement provides that no fees will be refunded. Aggrieved by the response of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint being CC No.723 of 2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh, (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing the written statement and stating that the rejection of her application was due to capping on number of applicants and rejection is the sole discretion of the Canadian Embassy. There was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. As per the agreement, there is no provision for refund of the fee. It was requested to dismiss the complaint.

(3.) The District Forum after considering the arguments and evidence of both the parties dismissed the complaint of the complainant vide its order dated 06.02.2017.