The court emphasized the need for the refund of the amount received by the petitioners and the payment of compensation for the deficiency in service, while also recognizing the complainant's entitlement to seek a refund of the amount deposited with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

ORDER

R.C. Jain, Presiding Member (Oral)- Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the cheque issued by it to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 80,325 was not honoured but he submits that directions given in the order dated 16.3.2012 in regard to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount has already been complied with inasmuch as he has deposited Rs. 65,000, 50% of the awarded amount, in the concerned District Forum and Rs. 25,000 in the State Commission as pre-requisite for filing the appeal. In our view, at this stage no further amount was required to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.11.2011, passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission ) in appeal No. 75/2011, M/s. Rimwea Career Forum Limited, opposite party before the District Forum, has approached this Commission with this petition purportedly filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by present petitioner against the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh in complaint No. 423 of 2010, by which order the said District Forum allowed the complaint by giving the following directions to the petitioners herein:

"In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund to the complainant [Rs. 25,000 plus Rs. 80,000 (Australian Dollars 2060)] = Total Rs. 1,05,000 along with interest @ 9% p. a. since the respective dates of its deposit with them by the complainant. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs. 20,000 as compensation for causing him mental agony, pain, harassment and financial loss, along with Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation. The order shall be fully complied with by the OPs severally and jointly within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay penal interest @18% p. a. instead of paying it p. a. on the said amount, i.e., Rs. 1,05,000 since the dates of its deposit, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant besides payment of compensation and litigation costs.

However, the OPs are free to claim the fee refund of Rs. 80,000 from the concerned Australian department, if so desired, and the complainant shall furnish all the required documents including undertaking affidavit/letter of subrogation etc. to the OPs, required for the purpose."

3. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the District Forum with a cost of Rs. 5,000 payable to the respondent. We have heard Counsel for the parties and have considered their respective submissions. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners in not performing their services for arranging Australian Immigration Visa for the complainant despite they having received a sum of Rs. 20,000 for the service and complainant deposited 2060 Australian Dollars in the Australian Immigration Department.

4. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the orders passed by the Fora below primarily on the ground that even if the finding of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is upheld to be correct, the petitioner could have been asked to refund Rs. 20,000 which the petitioner had received as service charge and not the sum of Rs. 80,000 (equivalent to 2060 Australian Dollars), which was directly deposited by the respondent/complainant with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (for short DIC ). The State Commission has erred in directing the petitioner to pay the said amount (Rs. 80,000) with a direction to the complainant to furnish all the required documents including undertaking, affidavit, letter of