Kurukshetra District Commission Holds Vmake Visas Liable For Failure To Arrange Canadian Permanent Residence Within Agreed Time Frame

Brief Facts:

The Complainant came across an advertisement on Facebook by Vmake Visas (“Vmake”), offering assistance for Canadian Permanent Residence (“PR”). A representative named Mehak Jain from Vmake contacted her, explaining the PR process and suggesting she qualified under the Provenance Nominee Program (PNP) in Quebec, Canada. She was assured PR within six months upon payment of Rs. 88,500/-. Believing these representations, the Complainant paid Rs. 47,200/- in two instalments. However, the promised PR was not delivered within the agreed timeframe.

Further, the representative of Vmake demanded an additional Rs. 15,000/- under the guise of case expenses, which she paid in cash during a visit to Vmake's office in Delhi. Subsequently, the Complainant was informed that Mehak Jain had been dismissed by Vmake, raising suspicions of fraudulent behaviour on its part. Feeling cheated by the failure to fulfil promises made, the Complainant made several communications with Vmake but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the owner of Vmake.

In response, Vmake Visas raised preliminary objections concerning maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, and alleged concealment of material facts. Upon contesting the complaint's merits, it vehemently denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the representative of Vmake made assurances regarding the PR process in Quebec, Canada, with a promised completion within six months. The District Commission noted that the subsequent expulsion of the representative raised suspicion of fraudulent conduct by Vmake.

The District Commission noted that Vmake acknowledged that the representative didn't receive payment despite the Complainant having paid Rs. 62,200/-. However, the owner of Vmake admitted to receiving Rs. 47,000/- from the Complainant, inclusive of Rs. 7,000/- GST. Further, the owner expressed willingness to refund 50% of the Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 20,000) portion to the Complainant. Despite this offer, the District Commission held that he could not unilaterally dictate terms and conditions. It noted that the owner had received the entire amount intended for the Complainant's visa processing, yet did not initiate any visa proceedings on her behalf.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the owner to refund the entire sum of Rs. 62,200/- to the Complainant, along with 9% penal interest. Additionally, the District Commission directed him to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and distress and Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation costs.

Case Title: Navneen Kaur v Ankit Kapoor

Click Here To Read/Download Order