Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(DC) 36
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH DISTRICT COMMISSION
Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President, Brij Mohan Sharma, Member
Aastha Saini – Appellant
Versus
BB Council – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/AB1/44/CC/223/2023|Consumer Complaint No : 223 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepak Arora
For the Respondents:
Failure of a visa consultancy to secure admission after receiving payment and issuing fabricated documents constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, entitling the consumer to a full refund with interest and compensation.
Headnote:The complainant approached the opposite parties for Canadian study visa consultancy and paid a total sum of Rs.12,35,000/-. The opposite parties issued an Offer Letter and a Letter of Acceptance, representing that admission had been secured. However, upon independent verification, the Canadian institution, Academy of Learning (AOL College), confirmed via e-mail that no admission record existed in the complainant's name. The court found that the opposite parties failed to process the visa and refused to refund the amount, which constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The primary issue was whether the act of collecting substantial payments and issuing fabricated admission documents without securing actual admission amounts to deficiency in service. The court reasoned that the conduct of receiving consideration, providing non-genuine documents, and failing to complete promised services while refusing a refund clearly establishes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, especially when the opposite parties failed to rebut the evidence provided by the complainant. the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is accordingly partly allowed and the OP No.2 & 4 are directed as under:- i) to refund Rs.12,35,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till the date of its actual realization. ii) to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards the harassment caused as well as litigation expenses.
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH
======
Consumer Complaint No : 223 of 2023
Date of Institution : 12.04.2023
Date of Decision : 29.06.2026
Aastha Saini aged about 21 years daughter of Sandeep Kumar resident of VPO Bohan, District Hoshiarpur.
… … … Complainant
Versus
1. BB Council through its Proprietor Ravinder Singh, SCO No.69, 3 rd Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017 (Alternative Address: House No.21-B, Shivalik Avenue, Kharar, Mohali).
[Service of OP No.1 dispensed with]
2. Ravinder Singh s/o Surinder Singh, SCO 69, 3 rd Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017.
Alternate: Ravinder Singh son of Surinder Singh, Burail Jail, through Jail Superintendent.
3. Pushpinder Kaur c/o BB Council, SCO No.69, 3 rd Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017.
[Service of OP No.3 dispensed with]
4. Pushpinder Kaur d/o Sukhdev Singh, H.No.19, Village Chuharpur, Parmjitpur, Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala.
… … … Opposite Parties
BEFORE: MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDENT
MR.B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER
Argued by:
Sh.Sandeep Kumar, SPA of Complainant.
Service of OP No.1 & 3 dispensed with.
OP No.2 & 4 ex-parte.
ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT
1] The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint pleading that he approached the OPs, who were engaged in providing immigration and student visa consultancy services, after seeing their advertisement on Facebook regarding study visas for Canada. Relying upon the representations made by the OPs and their authorized representative Ms.Pushpinder Kaur, the complainant engaged their services for obtaining a Canadian Study Visa. Pursuant to the assurances given by the OPs, the complainant made the payments towards processing of her study visa application, i.e. Rs.35,000/- transferred through bank to the account of Ravinder Singh on 25.04.2022; Rs.2,00,000/- paid in cash towards processing fees on 03.06.2022; Rs.6,50,000/- paid in cash towards further completion of fee on 15.06.2022 and Rs.3,50,000/- paid in cash towards GIC requirements on 02.08.2022. Thus the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.12,35,000/- to the OPs. During the course of processing, the OPs issued an Offer Letter dated 01.06.2022 and a Letter of Acceptance dated 27.06.2022, representing that the complainant had secured admission in a Canadian institution. The conditional offer letter showing prepaid fee is annexed as Annexure C-2 with the complaint.
It is pleaded that on account of the OPs' repeated delays and evasive replies, the complainant independently verified her admission status with the concerned Canadian institution, Academy of Learning (AOL College), which categorically confirmed through e-mail dated 27.08.2022 that no admission record existed in the complainant's name. The relevant e-mail correspondence is annexed as Annexure C-1 with the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs seeking an explanation and refund of the amount paid. Instead of refunding the money, the OP attempted to shift the entire responsibility upon their former employee Ms.Pushpinder Kaur, while refusing to discharge their contractual and legal obligations. The complainant served a legal notice upon the OP demanding refund of Rs.12,35,000/- along with interest and compensation. The copy of the legal notice is annexed as Annexure C-3 with the complaint. The OP, vide reply dated 13.12.2022, falsely denied receipt of the payments except Rs.35,000/- and disowned liability by alleging misconduct on the part of their former employee Ms.Pushpinder Kaur. The said reply is annexed as Annexure C-4 with the complaint. It is pleaded that the acts of the OPs in collecting substantial amount, issuing fabricated admission documents, failing to process the complainant's study visa, refusing to refund the amount and attempting to evade liability amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, causing financial loss, mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence, the present consumer complaint has been f
