DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the  9^th day of August 2023  

                       Filed on: 02/02/2023

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member

C C No. 74/2023

COMPLAINANT

Ancy K Alexander, D/.Alexander Mathew, Meppallil House, House No.17/844-C, Palluruthy, Pin-682 006.

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Parvathy Maya Shaji, Managing Director, Amster immigration overseas Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, Techno Plaza Building, Near BTH Sarovaram Restaurant, Kannadikkadu, Maradu,Ernakulam, Kera-682 304
2. Aju K Mathew, General Manager, Amster immigration overseas Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, Techno Plaza Building, Near BTH Sarovaram Restaurant, Kannakikkadu, Maradu, Ernakulam, Kerala-682 304

(o.p 1 and 2 rep. by Sherry J Thomas, XL/5977, Infant Jesus Bldg-2, Banerjee Road, Kochi-31)

F I N A L   O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1)       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant states that she was processing her Canada Permanent Residents programme through Amster and paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 22.01.2019. The Amster, the opposite party have fabricated eligibility score added in the assessment report for achieving sales target of the company.  On 26.09.2018, the opposite party forwarded the assessment report into the email id of the husband of the complainant. The CRS score as per the document is 441.  This was a fabricated assessment report.  The complainant further states that she had never given IELTS test score to Amster and believed the consultancy and the opposite party promised entry profile and score for 441 because all the above confirmation, the complainant paid Rs.75,000/- to the opposite party.  The complainant alleges that the opposite party had given fake assessment report, fake IELT score and it was mailed to the complainant.  After paying the amount and after signing the agreement the opposite party disclosed their policy which was not known to the complainant.   The complainant alleges that all the reports given to the complainant were fabricated.  The complainant had not benefited due to the faulty action of the opposite party since the consultancy regarding the Canada permanent residency programme was false and visit of the complainant in IRCC Canada Government website processing policy revealed that the complainant is cheated due to the faulty action of the opposite party.  The complainant had made a lot of complaints against the score and fabricated documents and the compulsion of the opposite party have appeared for IELT examination by the complainant, for which the complainant had paid Rs.1,49,,500/-  besides the payment made to the opposite party.  Hence the complainant approached to this Commission seeking for getting back the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.  There are nine payments paid by the complainant and two payments by her husband. 

2. Notice

Upon notice to the opposite party, they appeared but had not filed their version and the opposite party set ex-parte.  At this time the opposite parties filed I.A.No.684/2023 in the form of a Review Petition on 25.07.2023 which is perused and heard in detail.  The opposite parties filed version on 16.05.2023 which is belated by 53 days from the statutory period for filing version.  The case advanced and posted to 23.06.2023.  The matter of being advanced the case to 23.06.2023 is seen acknowledged by the counsel of the opposite party on 14.06.2023 itself.  The opposite party were not present on the date of posting of the case on 23.06.2023 and the opposite parties 1 and 2 were set ex-parte and the case was posted for ex-parte evidence of the complainant on that date.  Since the version is seen filed after 53 days from the statutory period. Hence the I.A. is dismissed since it do not have any merit and the complaint is posted for final hearing.

3) Evidence  

The complainant had produced Exbt.A1 to A21.

4)       The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:

(i)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?

ii)       If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?

(iii)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)       Point No. (1)

          The complainant had produced Exbt.A1 which goes to show that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the opposite party on 22.01.2019.  Further the complainant had proved that they had paid any amount for IELTS coaching as fees towards IELTS examination with the support of any substantial evidences.  Since the argument of the complainant is that the complainant had not been benefited from the opposite party and in the absence of any proof from the side of the opposite party regarding the non-fabrication of the documents and also in support of the merit of assistance provided by them to the complainant.  The Commission come to the conclusion that the complainant is eligible to get back Rs.75,000/- paid to the opposite party and hence the following orders are issued.

          As regards to the other payments made by the complainant for which relief sought for, the opposite parties arrayed by the complainants in this complaint are neither seen involved or responsible and hence the Commission do not have evaluated the same on merit.

1. The opposite parties shall pay back Rs.75,000/- to the complainant from the date of receipt of the amount paid to the opposite parties till the date of realization.
2. As regards to the fees paid to the IELTS and since they are not made as opposite parties in this case, no orders passed as second reliefs sought for by the complainant.
3. An amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the opposite parties as compensation to the complainant.
4. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible.

The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts ordered vide (1) and (2) above shall attract @9.5% interest p.a from the date of receipt of coy of this order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 09^th day August  2023.

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran Member

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                   D.B.Binu President

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia T.N., Member

                                                                        Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

                                                                                                                     C.C. No.74/2023

                                                                                                Order dated 09/08/2023