Chandigarh Consumer Commission Directs Immigration Firm To Refund Twelve Lakhs Following Fraudulent Study Visa

In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, has held an immigration consultancy and its proprietor accountable for deceptive practices. The Commission ordered the firm, BB Council, to refund ₹12.35 lakh to a student after discovering that documents provided for a Canadian study visa were fraudulent.

The Path to Deception

The case began when student Aastha Saini, after viewing a Facebook advertisement, engaged the services of BB Council to facilitate a Canadian study visa. Relying on the firm's assurances and their representative, Pushpinder Kaur, Saini deposited a total of ₹12,35,000 via bank transfer and cash payments.

To secure her trust, the consultancy provided an Offer Letter and a Letter of Acceptance from the Academy of Learning (AOL College) in Canada. However, when Saini independently contacted the institution to verify her status, she received a startling response: the college confirmed that no admission record existed in her name. When confronted, the consultancy shifted blame to a former employee, refusing to address the financial loss.

Legal Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny

During the proceedings before the Commission, despite being duly served, the primary accused—proprietor Ravinder Singh and Pushpinder Kaur—failed to appear, leading the bench comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma to proceed ex-parte .

Saini presented comprehensive evidence, including bank records and email correspondences from AOL College. Although receipts for the substantial cash payments were missing, the Commission accepted her sworn testimony, noting that the firm’s failure to issue receipts did not absolve them of their liability, especially given their refusal to contest the allegations.

Key Observations

The Commission’s order highlights the failure of the consultancy to uphold their contractual obligations, observing:

  • "The complainant has consistently explained that despite repeated demands, the receipts were never issued by the OPs."
  • "The said communication clearly establishes that the documents supplied by the OPs during the course of visa processing were not genuine and that no valid admission had been secured."
  • "The conduct of OP No.2 & 4 in receiving consideration for processing the complainant's study visa, issuing documents representing that admission had been secured... clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice ."

A Mandate for Accountability

Finding the consultancy guilty of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the Court directed the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of ₹12,35,000, along with interest at 9% per annum calculated from the dates of the respective deposits. Furthermore, the Commission ordered a lump sum compensation of ₹20,000 to cover the harassment faced by the complainant and her litigation costs.

The consultancy has been given 45 days to comply with the directive, underscoring the legal system's commitment to protecting students against fraudulent immigration practices.