LAW FOR ALL
advocatemmmohan@gmail.com .
LawforAll
(Move to ...)
Home
▼
Showing posts with label
Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.
.
Show all posts
Showing posts with label
Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.
.
Show all posts
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.= On preliminary assessment on 19.12.2000 by WWICS, the Complainant was considered to be a fit case for visa. Allegedly, Rs.92,600/- was paid to WWICS for necessary fee and services. The application for visa was forwarded on 12.08.2004 to the High Commission of Canada. But, on 7.12.2006 the respondent/Complainant was informed that the application had been rejected. -the OP has wrongly assessed the qualification marks of the Complainant as 72 when it was only 52 in the assessment of the Canadian High Commission. This was a deficiency of service on the part of OP, which had resulted in rejection of the visa application. = “It is admitted fact that the complainant on 17.03.2001 was in India and signed the agreement Annexure R-1. He never went to Canada on that date nor any representative of WWICS, Canada is proved to have come to India to sign the agreement with the complainant. The OPs have therefore, failed to prove if there was any agreement between the complainant and WWICS Canada and this story now being put forward by the OPs cannot be believed.”- the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party i.e. WWICS Canada. 7. Having agreed with the State Commission on non-existence of a separate contract with WWICS Canada, we also hold that the question on non-joinder of necessary party does not arise. We have also noted earlier in this order that before the State Commission, the OPs/revision petitioner had contended that they have no objection to the direction of the District Forum in relation to the refund of the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to go into the grounds on which the order of refund of this amount of Rs.25,000 is questioned by the revision petitioner. We also do not find any merit in the contention that the complaint was barred by limitation. As already observed, the application for visa was rejected on 7.12.2006 and the consumer complaint was filed on 2.4.2007. Therefore, the question of limitation would not arise at all.
›
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2557 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 03.04.2012 ...
›
Home
View web version