The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a petition filed by an immigration firm against a state consumer commission’s order, which had mandated the firm to provide a full refund to a couple after it failed to secure permanent residency (PR) visas for them in Canada.
The case involved a couple from the Satellite area of Ahmedabad, who, in October 2006, sought the services of WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt Ltd (formerly known as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services) to assist in their move to Canada.
The couple opted for the firm’s gold package, paying over Rs 68,000 in fees, which included advance visa fees. They also cleared the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and paid an additional Rs 12,000 in fees. The firm assured them that it would secure their PR visas within a year and offered a refund in the event of a visa rejection.
However, the process was delayed due to a change in Canada’s visa policy. In 2013, the firm informed the couple that their PR visa applications had been rejected, and refunded over Rs 31,000 of the total fees. Dissatisfied with this partial refund, the couple sued the firm, claiming a deficiency in service.
The district redressal commission ruled in their favour, ordering the firm to refund Rs 50,000 with 9% interest.
The complainants then approached the State Consumer Commission, demanding a full refund. The firm opposed the request, arguing that it was not responsible for the rejection of the visa applications, as the changes in Canada’s visa policy were beyond its control. The firm further asserted that there was no deficiency in service on its part.
The state commission, however, ordered the firm to provide a full refund and also cover the fees the complainants had incurred for the IELTS exam. The firm subsequently filed a revision petition before the NCDRC, reiterating that the rejection of the visa was due to factors outside its control.
In its ruling, the NCDRC noted, “While the visa rejection due to certain policy changes may not be the opponent’s (firm’s) fault directly, lack of proper guidance and unsustainable assurances about timelines reinforce their liability for deficiency in service to that extent as determined by the state commission.”
“In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the State Commission order, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act,” it added.
As a result, the NCDRC upheld the state commission’s decision, further affirming the firm’s liability for providing a full refund to the complainants.
Also Read: KSKVKU Faces Scrutiny Over Illegal Appointments Allegations and Bribery Claims
