False Representations By Immigration Agency Amounts To Deficiency In Service- Ernakulam District Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant , along with his wife, planned to migrate to Australia and sought assistance from an immigration assistance agency in Australia named Aives Immigration. After initial communication, agency advised the complainants on selecting occupation for their skill assessment. Despite concerns about the lack of research publications, required for the assessment the agency assured the complainant that the publication wasn't necessary. The complainant signed a contract, paid a fee, and began the migration process. The complainants excelled the assessment PTE exam required for the final assessment but it was later discovered that the research publications were indeed necessary for the skill assessment, contrary to the assurances given by the agency. The complainant, despite denying plagiarism allegations and providing evidence of original work, faced rejection due to the absence of research publications. The CEO of the immigration agency Mr. Rasheed Backer, offered a Rs. 10,000 refund in exchange for dropping the complaint, which the complainant considered unfair and threatening.Feeling aggrieved the complainants filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Ernakulam.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The immigration agency denied the complaint's validity, asserting that as registered Australian immigration agents, they fulfilled their ethical obligations per the Australian government's code of conduct. It was argued that the signed contract acknowledged the risks and aligned with immigration regulations to prevent immigration fraud. The agency claimed the complaint is a malicious attempt to harass and blackmail them, emphasizing the complainant's alleged breach of contract through plagiarism done in the research publications. According to the agency, the rejection of the complainant's final skills assessment led to the termination of services and rendered the complainant ineligible for a refund and denied any allegations of deficiency in service

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that the agency misled the complainant by assuring positive skill assessments for chosen occupations while downplaying the requirement of research publications for the passing of the assessment test. . Despite the complainant's diligence in exams and the migration process, the agency's guidance and lack of transparency resulted in substantial financial loss and mental distress to the complainants. The commission relied on Amberish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. case, where the National Commission held that a consumer is entitled to compensation if their reliance on the opposite party's representations results in financial loss and mental distress. Furthermore, the commission held that the agency's unethical attempt to provide a partial refund while pressuring the complainant to withdraw the complaint shows their disregard for ethical standards and consumer rights. As per the findings of the commission, the evidence provided supports the complainant's claims of false assurances, misleading guidance, and financial and emotional harm by the agency.

The Commission directed the OP to refund Rs. 1,30,953 to the complainant, along with a payment of Rs 1,00,,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs 10,000 towards the cost of proceedings.

Case Title: Roshna K V Vs. Sayid Bakir

Case Number: C.C. No.- 458/2019

Click Here To Read/Download The Order