SUBRATA BISWAS Vs. SUNIL SUBHASH SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19th July 2006 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, the State Commission ). By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the original opposite parties (OPs) (respondents in this revision petition) and dismissed the complaint of the complainant/petitioner.

(2.) The complainant approached OP 3 in February 2002 with a view to availing of the servicea of the Institute of Foreign Academic Consultancy and Training in order to secure visa for migration to New Zealand. The consultancy charge for this purpose was fixed at Rs.80,000/- and the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- upfront. The balance fee was to be paid on receipt of the visa. In addition, the complainant paid the processing fee of New Zealand Dollar 1000, which was then equivalent to Rs.23,800/-, through the OP Institute, to the New Zealand Immigration Service by demand draft on 24.08.2002. Sometime in September 2003, the Immigration Policy of the New Zealand changed and, consequently, the complainant s application became invalid. The OPs refunded 75% of the consultancy fees paid, i.e., Rs.45,000/- in accordance with the agreement. However, the visa processing fee paid by the complainant was not refunded to him though, according to the complainant, the OPs had received the refund from the Government of New Zealand, Immigration Service. Alleging deficiency in service on this ground, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (in short, the District Forum ). The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay jointly and severally Rs.23,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 17.10.2003 till realisation, Rs.1000/- towards compensation for mental torture and Rs.500/- towards cost to the complainant. It is this order that was set aside by the State Commission in appeal of the OPs, as noticed above.

(3.) We have heard Ms. Soni Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. Though the respondents were duly served and the acknowledgment receipts of notice are on the record of the Commission, none appeared on their behalf.