District Consumer Commission Holds Visa Consultant Firm Liable For Unfair Trade Practice
District Consumer Commission Holds Visa Consultant Firm Liable For Unfair Trade Practice
Orders to pay the student aspiring to study abroad Rs.8 lakh compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000 to cover litigation cost
The Chandigarh-I District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has held Jakara International Pvt. Ltd, the visa consultant firm, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The firm was accused of portraying a false picture of a bright future for the complainant.
The bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) noted that the firm failed to deliver on its commitment, and as promised, did not secure the visa for the complainant, Rohan Rana.
The complainant, a student with aspirations for overseas studies, encountered an enticing advertisement by the immigration firm Jakara. While exploring the opportunity, he engaged with the services provided by the firm. Rana expressed interest in pursuing studies in Poland to pursue a course in International Hospitality Management.
He paid Jakara Rs.35,000, followed by an additional Rs.55,000. As assured by the firm, Rana expected to receive a visa to facilitate his studies abroad. However, the firm failed to fulfill its commitment, causing disappointment to the complainant, and prompting him to approach the Consumer Commission demanding a fee refund.
However, subsequently, Jakara offered to send Rana to France for a different course, with the stipulation that the amount paid by him would be adjusted.
Complying with the proposition, Rana deposited further fees and participated in a pre-visa interview. He was issued a certificate for a visa by Sanjay Babu Tetakala (opposite party No.2), who later unilaterally altered the study location, communicating the change to Rana.
On his arrival in France, the complainant was confronted with inadequate accommodation arrangements, which he was forced to address on his own. After undergoing the unforeseen challenges for a week, he returned to India. Despite his repeated requests for a refund, the parties representing the immigration firm remained unresponsive.
Left with no alternative, he filed a complaint with Chandigarh-I DCDRC.
The complainant contended that he entrusted the firm with a substantial amount based on their assurances of facilitating his overseas education. However, he faced a litany of unmet promises and difficulties. He stated that Jakara misled him and was responsible for his shattered dream of studying abroad. He sought a refund of the fees paid, along with compensation for the mental anguish he endured, and the costs incurred in pursuing legal action.
On the other hand, the immigration firm maintained that it provided certain services, including securing offers and pre-acceptance letters, as well as arranging a visa interview. It argued that the complainant, having the autonomy to select his university and destination, did not meet the definition of a ‘consumer’ under the relevant Act. It further said that Rana’s admission to universities fell outside their responsibility. Therefore, no obligations were breached from its end.
However, the District Commission found that the complainant was entrapped by the firm and was shocked to discover that the college did not meet his expectations for the fees charged. It noted that the evidence and submission presented by Rana established that Jakara played with the complainant and his family’s emotions by presenting a rosy picture of a bright future of studying abroad.
The Commission held that the actions of the immigration firm constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Its actions caused immense mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
Thus, the DCDRC directed Jakara and Sanjay Tetakala to pay Rs.4,00,000 each (totaling Rs. 8,00,000) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to him. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs.10,000 to the complainant to cover the cost of litigation.
