Chandigarh-I District Commission Holds Jakara International For Unfair Trade Practices

The Chandigarh-I District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held one visa consultant firm, Jakara International Pvt. Ltd, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by presenting a rosy picture of a bright future for the complainant studying abroad. The bench noted that the firm had failed to deliver on their commitments and they did not secure the visa as promised. Brief Facts: Rohan Rana (“Complainant”), a student with aspirations for overseas studies, encountered an enticing advertisement by Jakara International Pvt. Ltd (“Immigration Firm”). As a result, he decided to explore the opportunity and engaged with the services provided by the immigration firm. Specifically, he expressed interest in pursuing studies in Poland, more precisely a course in International Hospitality Management. The Complainant entrusted the immigration firm with an initial payment of Rs. 35,000, followed by an additional payment of Rs. 55,000. Assured by the immigration firm, he expected to receive a visa to facilitate his studies abroad. However, the immigration firm failed to fulfil this commitment, causing disappointment and prompting the Complainant to demand a refund of the fees. Subsequently, the immigration firm offered an alternative: to send the Complainant to France for a different course, with the stipulation that the amount previously paid would be adjusted. Complying with this proposition, he deposited further fees and participated in a pre-visa interview. Mr. Sanjay Babu Tetakala, marked as Opposite Party No. 2, issued a certificate for a visa, but later unilaterally altered the study location, communicating this change to the Complainant. When the Complainant arrived in France, he was confronted with inadequate accommodation arrangements, which he had to address on his own. After enduring these challenges for a week, he returned to India. Despite the Complainant’s repeated requests for a refund, the parties representing the immigration firm remained unresponsive. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Chandigarh-I District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”). The central contention of the Complainant revolved around the premise that he had entrusted the immigration firm with a substantial sum of money based on their assurances of facilitating his overseas education, only to experience a litany of unmet promises and difficulties. He contended that the immigration firm had misled him and was responsible for his shattered dream of studying abroad. As a remedy, he sought a refund of the fees paid, along with compensation for the mental anguish he endured and the costs incurred in pursuing this legal action. In contrast, the immigration firm contended that they had provided certain services, including securing offers and pre-acceptance letters, as well as arranging a visa interview. They argued that the Complainant, who had the autonomy to select his university and destination independently, did not meet the definition of a “consumer” under the relevant Act. They maintained that the Complainant’s admission to universities fell outside their responsibility, and therefore, they did not breach their obligations. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission found that the Complainant was entrapped by the immigration firm and shocked to discover that the college in question did not meet his expectations for the fees charged. Further, it noted that the evidence and submission presented established that the immigration firm had played with the Complainant’s and his family’s emotions by presenting a rosy picture of a bright future studying abroad. The District Commission concluded that the actions of the immigration firm constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. These actions caused immense mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. In light of the above findings, the District Commission directed the immigration firm and Sanjay Babu Tetakala each to pay Rs. 4,00,000 (totalling Rs. 8,00,000/-) to the Complainant as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused. Additionally, they are required to pay Rs. 10,000 to the Complainant to cover the costs of litigation. Case Title: Rohan Rana vs Jakra International Pvt. Ltd. Case No.: CC/327/2021 Advocate for the Complainant: Sunit Kumar Chahuhann Advocate for the Respondent: Yoginder Nagpal Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chandigarh-I District Commission Holds Jakara International For Unfair Trade Practices

Smita Singh

Tags