STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/63/2025 RAVINDER PAL SINGH S/o. Harjeet Singh PRESENT ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus AAARKANE OVERSEAS PERMANENT ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

RAVINDER PAL SINGH S/o. Harjeet Singh DATED: 26/11/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.

CHANDIGARH ============

Consumer Complaint No. : CC/63/2025 Date of Institution : 26/06/2025 Date of Decision : 26/11/2025 Ravinder Pal Singh son of Sh.Harjeet Singh, resident of House No.1471, 1 st Floor, Deep Complex, Hallomajra, Chandigarh – 160002.

……… Complainant V E R S U S through its Director/Owner, 318-319, Ljmima Complex, Aarkane Overseas, near Infinity Mall, Mind Space, Malad West, Mumbai - 400064.

…… Opposite Party BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER PRESENT : Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the Complainant Opposite Party proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.09.2025 PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT Looting and fraud by travel agents are rampant in India, particularly in

1.

this part of the country. Many unscrupulous agents deceive innocent youth with false promises of bright opportunities abroad. In reality, these hapless individuals often fall prey to unfair trade practices and end up suffering immense financial and emotional losses. It is deeply disheartening that such agents frequently resort to illegal and unethical means to send citizens to foreign lands, exploiting their dreams and desperation for a better future.

In the case in hand, the complainant asserts that he has been looted

2.

in the sum of 12,27,500/- by the Aarkane Overseas (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Opposite Party”) who allured him to apply under SINP (Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program) for easy and fast way to move to Canada. The complainant availed the services of the Opposite Party and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure C-1) was executed for securing the SNIP work permit. In pursuance thereof, the Opposite Party has received a sum of 12,27,500/- as per receipts (Annexure C-7 colly). Subsequently, the Opposite Party shifted the program of the Complainant to BC PNP (British Columbia PR Pathway), but no services were provided to him nor his money was returned. Ultimately, the Complainant sent e-mails to the Opposite Parties to admit his claim, but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party , the Complainant has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Call for the records from the office of Opposite Party.

ii. To refund an amount of 12,27,500/- along with 18% interest.

iii. That Clause 12 of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated

14.01.2021 (Annexure C-1) be declared illegal, null and void being one sided and unfair contract, as defined under Section

47 (1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

iv. To pay compensation to the tune of 5,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment along with costs of present litigation amounting to 75,000/- to the Complainant, in the interest of justice.

3. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 19.09.2025.

4. Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case, along with written arguments advanced, with utmost care and circumspection.

6. In this case, following points have emerged for determination: -

i) Whether this Commission has territor