Consumer Commission orders refund of ₹5,000 for failed Canadian visa service

Ludhiana: The neighborhood Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission ordered an IELTS center to refund Rs 5,000 to a client after it failed to do so after canceling its visit to Canada.
The commission also ordered Sophie IELTS Centerin front of the DC office at Sangrur in Punjab, to pay a composite compensation of Rs 3,000 to the complainant Prem Chand of Manakwal in Ludhiana. As per the complaint, the complainant has retained the services of the opposite party (who handles the Visa Assistance) with a view to obtaining a visa for him and his wife to meet their son Rohit Grover residing in Canada. The opposite party demanded Rs 35,000 for the visa process in two installments with full refund, in case the complainant cancels his visit to Canada within a month.
According to the complainant, he paid the first installment of Rs 15,000 on August 24, 2022 and the remaining Rs 20,000 was to be paid at the time of finalization of the documents by the opposite party within a month from the date of receipt of the first payment.
The complainant provided all the required documents for the Canada visa, but before signing and processing the visa, the complainant canceled the visit to Canada due to unavoidable circumstances and even the opposite party was informed after a week of the cancellation of the visit to Canada.
The complainant said that the opposite party first refused to refund Rs 15,000, but later refunded Rs 10,000 to the complainant on September 8, 2022. But the remaining amount was not refunded. The complainant sent a formal notice dated May 12, 2023 to the opposing party but the latter gave no response.
Hence this complaint, through which the complainant prayed that the opposite party should refund Rs 5,000 with interest and pay compensation of Rs 25,000 and litigation costs of Rs 5,500. On notice, no one showed up on behalf of the opposite party despite service and as such, they proceeded against a vide exparte order dated September 4, this year.
The Commission heard the exparte arguments of the complainant’s counsel and also considered the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents filed on record by the complainant. The commission observed that the opposite party failed to refund the entire amount to the complainant, thereby causing financial loss to the complainant. He held that the exparte evidence was not rebutted since the opposing party did not choose to contest this matter and was sued against exparte.
The commission found that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, whom it ordered to refund the remaining amount of Rs 5,000 to the complainant within 30 days from from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the The complainant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% on the said amount from the date of the order until the date of actual payment.