LALIT BALI Vs. THREE A RESOURCES PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 295 of 2011, vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner/complainant Lalit Bali was ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I UT Chandigarh dated 18.8.2011 was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant approached the respondent-Consultancy company seeking their assistance in immigration to Canada. He deposited the necessary registration fee etc. as demanded by the respondent and as stated, also provided the requisite documents. It has been stated that the complainant further paid Rs. 50,000/- as per Demand Draft dated 09.10.2003 and also deposited Rs. 19,000/- towards fee for the High Commission of Canada. The complainant received letter of acknowledgement from the High Commission dated 29.9.2004, vide which a file number was issued to him and at the same time, it was stated that they will complete the initial screening of his application within 33 (thirty-three) months, but there was no guarantee to this effect. It has been alleged by the complainant that the respondent did not process the case of the petitioner for one year and indulged in unfair trade practice. Later on, the High Commission of Canada sent him another letter dated 15.10,2008, i.e. after about four years, asking him whether he was still interested for immigration to Canada. The complainant says that he submitted all necessary documents again on 15.01.2009, but the respondent did not send the case to the High Commission of Canada although, the time for submission of documents was extended by them from 90 to 120 days. The complainant has alleged that the respondent caused huge pecuniary loss to the complainant and also ruined his career and they were found negligent in rendering proper service to the petitioner. A complaint was then lodged under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, but the District Forum vide their order dated 18.8.2011 came to the conclusion that the allegations against the opposite party were not proved and hence the complaint was dismissed. An appeal against this order was also dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 84,000/- with the respondent for taking up his case with the Canada High Commission for immigration to Canada but they did not render proper service to him. He further stated that the respondents were not having a valid license for handling this kind of business under Section 10 of the Emigration Act, 1983. The learned counsel assailed the impugned order by saying that the State Commission had observed in their order that the complainant did not submit the requisite documents within the prescribed time to the Canada High Commission. This observation was contrary to the finding of the District Forum, which observed that the documents had been submitted in time. The learned counsel invited our attention to the letters written by the High Commission to the complainant and also by the complainant to the High Commission requesting for a time of fifteen days more for submitting the documents. The complainant also mentioned in his letter dated 14.1.2009 sent to the High Commission that he had got married and had given application for getting passport for his wife. In spite of all this, the case of the complainant was rejected vide letter dated 24.6.2009 of the Canada High Commission, saying that his file had been closed, because he did not provide the requisite documents within the period of 120 days.