MEENAKSHI vs Foreign Horizons Overseas Consultants Pvt. Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.01.2012, passed by the U.T. Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 249/2011, "Meenakshi versus Foreign Horizons Overseas Consultants Private Limited & Ors. " vide which appeal filed by complainant/present petitioner against the order passed by the District Forum on 5.08.2011, allowing the said complaint was dismissed. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner moved application on 11.10.2013 for deletion of respondent no. 3 from the array of parties. The said application was allowed and the name of respondent no. 3 was deleted.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant submitted the requisite documents to respondents/OPs for arranging work permit visa for her for Australia and paid Rs.85,000/ -, in all, towards processing, documentation and consultation charges. On the insistence of the complainant, agreement dated 09.02.2009 was also executed between the parties. It has been alleged that subsequently the OPs got some blank documents and cheque etc. duly signed from the complainant. It is further alleged that later on the OPs converted the case of the complainant unilaterally from work permit visa to study visa and told her to deposit a further sum of Rs.45,000/ - in the name of one Mr. Naresh who was their associate. The complainant deposited Rs.25,000/ - on 5.5.2009, Rs.20,000/ - on 07.05.2009 and Rs.15,700/ - on 23.06.2009 with the OPs. Thereafter, she visited the office of the OPs many times, but when there was no response, she asked for refund of the money deposited. A sum of Rs.85,000/ - was returned to her by the OPs after lot of alleged harassment. She, however, demanded rest of the money amounting to Rs.60,700/ - and on failure of the OPs to give her the amount, she filed a consumer complaint against them, requesting refund of Rs.60,700/ - and Rs.2,00,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/ - as cost of litigation. The District Forum vide their order dated 05.08.2011 allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ - for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation. The complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission asking for enhancement of compensation, but the same was dismissed as per impugned order. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner has suffered lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs and hence, compensation to be granted to her to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/ - on account of mental agony and harassment and punitive damages of Rs.1 lakh should be awarded in favour of the petitioner as the OPs had played with the career of the petitioner. Learned counsel invited our attention to copy of the agreement between the parties, saying that the OPs had failed to discharge their duties as stated in the said agreement.

ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence, they were not entitled to compensate the petitioner in any manner. In fact, they had already returned the amount of Rs.85,000/ - to the petitioner which included the non -refund component of Rs.35,000/ - as well. The learned counsel invited our attention to the written statement filed by them before the District Forum, in which it has been mentioned that the visa file of the petitioner was rejected by the Australian High Commission on the ground that the financial documents provided by the petitioner for her visa case were found to be fake and forged. The Australian High Commission has, therefore, rejected here case whereas OPs had filed her case before the Australian High Commission with utmost care and as per Rules and Regulations.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The admitted facts are that the petitioner obtained the services of the OPs for helping her in obtaining work visa from the Australian High Commission and for providing her guidance for the same and for this purpose, an agreement was also executed between the petitioner and the OPs. It has been contended by the OPs in the written statement before the District Forum that the visa case of the complainant was rejected by the Australian High Commission, because the documents submitted by her were found to be fake and forged on inquiry. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioner. It cannot be stated, therefore, by any stretch of imagination that the OPs were responsible in any manner, if the petitioner failed to obtain visa for going to Australia. Further, it is also made out that a sum of Rs.85,000/ - has been returned by the OPs to the petitioner. The petitioner did not press the claim of getting back Rs.15,700/ - and only requested for compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. The District Forum has already allowed a sum of Rs.10,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation. This order has been upheld by the State Commission and the OPs have not preferred any appeal against the same. In the light of discussion above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the well -reasoned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum. There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed by the Fora below. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.