ASIF KHAN Vs. TAURUS INFOTEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') alleging deficiency in service by the opposite party in not facilitating immigration services to Australia for which the complainant paid a consideration.

(2.) According to the complainant the brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a B Tech, MBA Degree holder and was also pursing law from Pune University. The complainant alleges that the opposite party was the owner of Taurus Infotech and was providing services of consultancy such as immigration by charging consultancy fees including taxes from candidates for services/ assistance for immigration including representation, interaction, communication, carrying out any transactions between the enrolled candidates and the concerned government/ immigration authorities. The opposite party by making claims of immigration services convinced the complainant to enrol for immigration for Australia. The opposite party also convinced the complainant about qualifying for the Australian immigration by doing the assessment. The complainant alleges that the opposite party had assured, promised and convinced the complainant that the entire process will take approximately 9 months from 9/3/2008 to December 2008 to complete the immigration process.

(3.) On 9/3/2008 complainant enrolled to apply through the opposite party for immigration to Australia and submitted the requisite documents and paid a sum of Rs.25,000.00 through cheque as initial instalment to start the process of immigration. On 4/6/2008, the complainant received an assessment letter, competency demonstration report from the Engineers Australia which mentioned reference contract ID as 3434752 for all future communications and required the complainant to appear for IELTS Tests and to secure minimum 6 band in each module of listening, reading, writing and speaking. The complainant appeared for the IELTS Test on 26/7/2008 at Mumbai and secured overall score of 6.5 band and secured minimum 6 band in each module as prescribed by the assessment letter from Engineers Australia. The complainant states that he scored 7 in listening, 6 in reading, 6 in writing and 6.5 in speaking. The complainant also paid visa fees to the opposite party for the payment of visa fees. Complainant also paid Australian Dollars 2060 on 27/8/2008. The opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the amount and asked him to pay additional amount of Australian Dollars 45 which was paid in October 2008. Hence, the complainant has paid all the necessary payments for the immigration along with all the required documents to the opposite party. Complainant states that the Australian Immigration Department and Engineers Australia after verification of the degree/ assessment of qualifications of the complainant, categorised the complainant as 'Engineering Technologist' vide letter dated September 2008. The complainant submits the opposite party was to submit the fees, visa application and documents to the Australian authorities for further processing by the end of August 2008 or before 13/11/2008. However, the opposite party submitted the visa application and visa fees on 27/11/2008 after a delay of three months. On 27/11/2008, the complainant received an acknowledgement of receipt of visa application from the Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Complainant alleges that due to delayed filing of visa application by the opposite party by 15 days, there was a decrease in the overall score of the complainant. The complainant reminded the opposite party several times regarding submission of the documents immediately and before 13/11/2008 as the complainant was going to attain 30 years age as on 13/11/2008, since increase in the age decreases the related points for immigration to Australia. The complainant further alleges that the opposite party, due to delayed processing deprived the complainant of the benefit of age. The complainant alleges that even at a score of 110 points the case of the complainant was a strong case as the required score to qualify was 80 to 120 points. It was only due to the improper representation, carelessness, negligence, deficiency, misleading, cheating, delay and deceit by the opposite party that the complainant's case for grant of migrant visa Class VE Subclass 175 was refused due to s shortfall by 10 points.