IMPORTANT POINT
Redundant revision petition must be dismissed with costs.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—In the present revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short, ‘Act’) by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties, there is challenge toORDER dated 27.3.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (for short, ‘Act’), vide which Appeal No.641 of 2012 filed by the petitioners againstORDER dated 29.3.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (for short, ‘District Forum’) was dismissed.

2. Brief facts are that Petitioner No.1 is the Immigration Consultancy Services and Petitioner No.2 is its branch office at Kochi. It is stated that Respondent/Complainant entered into an agreement with the Petitioners on 29-01-2009 for immigration to Canada. Petitioners agreed to render the services to the respondent. As per the terms of agreement, respondent has to pay a total fee of Rs.50,000/-. Out of the said sum, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was payable at the time of signing of the agreement and balance sum of Rs.20,000/- within thirty days from the date of signing the agreement. Over and above, the professional charges, it was also agreed to pay a sum of 1700 US $ as visa processing fee and for meeting the initial expenses on arrival of the respondent at Canada. It was also agreed to refund 50% of the total fee collected or Rs.25,000/- whichever is less in case the respondent was declared disqualified. Respondent paid the entire amounts as agreed upon and submitted all the certificates. The certificate for job experience was obtained from the present employer of the respondent on the lines of advice given by the petitioners. The application submitted by the respondent was rejected by the High Commissioner of Canada vide letter dated 19-11-2009 stating that the job experience as per the experience certificate, was not sufficient for processing the application. After that, respondent requested the petitioners for refund of 50% of the professional charges paid and the Visa Processing Fee collected from him. But petitioners did not care to reimburse the amount. According to the respondent, she is entitled for the refund of 50% of the amount paid by her for professional services of Rs.50,000/- and full amount of visa processing fee collected from her of 1,700 US $ together with interest, compensation and costs.

3. Petitioner in its reply took the plea that respondent has not impleaded M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai to whom respondent had paid a sum of US $ 1,700. They are necessary parties to the proceedings.

4. It is further stated that petitioners only to assist the candidates in the process which includes the preparation of his or her immigration file, verify their credentials, supply with required documents, communicate the case with Canadian authorities, doing the entire correspondence with the High Commission etc. and will not cover a 100% guarantee of migration to Canada, since sanction for migration is to be granted by the Canadian authorities. Respondent as per Clause 2 (a) of the contract was required to submit the complete documents within 30 days from the date of signing the agreement. However, respondent in spite of the repeated requests failed to submit the complete documents along with experience certificates which resulted in rejection of her case by the Canadian high commission. In this case, petitioners have properly carried out their responsibilities efficiently and effectively. The last day for submitting the documents was, 20th of September, 2009. The respondent submitted only incomplete documents, mainly the experience certificate which does not contain detailed job duties. Further, petitioners never agreed to refund 50% of the fees. Moreover, as per Clause 10 of the contract it is clear that the services provided by the petitioner company being professional in nature, the entire fee is non-refundable. Respondent’s case was rejected not due to deficiency on the part of the petitioners but on t