Subrata Biswas vs Sunil Subhash Shah

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.

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 complainants 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. 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.

Ms. Singh has drawn our attention to specific documents filed before the District Forum and also brought to the notice of the State Commission. These are copies of two e-mails, which are reproduced below: From: subrata biswas [mailto:biswas8@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday 6 April 2004 : 1.06 p.m To : Subir Tandon (NZIS) Subject : RE: Residence visa Dear Mr. Tandon, Thank you for the kind reply. Please confirm that the refund made by you to our consultant was meant for disbursement to the respective candidates. Ill be grateful to your positive reply in this matter. Thanking you, Subrata Biswas Subir Tandon (NZIS) Subir.Tandon@nzis.dol.govt.nz Dear Subrata, Your application was lapsed in accordance with the Immigration Amendment Act 2003. We had sent a letter advising this and refund form to your consultant. Subsequently, we received the completed refund form and the refund was made to your consultant. The bank draft #369425 favouring Akalpita Katre was sent to your consultant on 17.10.2003. Please feel free to contact me in case of any further query. Regards Subir Tandon Service Leader Residence New Zealand Immigration Service Sir Edmund Hilary Marg Chanakyapuri, New Delhi

IT is, in fact, difficult to see why and how the State Commission completely failed to take notice of this communication which had been duly taken into account by the District Forum in its order. The e-mail response of an officer of New Zealand Immigration Service to the e-mail of the petitioner/complainant enquiring about the refund of fees remitted through the OPs to the New Zealand Immigration Services leaves one in no doubt that the OPs had received the refund amount of Rs.23,800/- from the New Zealand Immigration Service sometime in October 2003. This should, therefore, have been promptly refunded to the complainant. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order of the State Commission, which is wholly erroneous, is set aside, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the District Forum is confirmed. In addition, the respondents/OPs are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.10,000/- by way of cost of these proceedings to the petitioner/ complainant within four weeks from the date of this order.