Follow Us
Ishrat S Banwait
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 10
An immigration firm has been penalised for issuing a fake Canadian visa to a city resident and showing him ‘false dreams’.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed De Montrel Recruitment Private Limited, through its director and proprietor Dhruv Sood, to pay Rs 24.33 lakh.
As per the complainant, Ashish of Sector 41, a representative of the firm approached him in 2015 and stated that Sood can help him in getting admission in an educational institute and can arrange for him a travel visa of Canada. After getting the assurance, the complainant paid Rs 23 lakh between October 2015 and May 2016.
Ashish waited patiently with a hope that his case is being taken care of by the company.
After some time, Sood failed to attend calls made by the complainant.
Attempts made to meet him went in vain.
After much persuasion, Sood handed him a copy of visa saying that the same has been granted by the Canadian Embassy.
When checked with Embassy officials, the visa turned out to be fake.
Ashish lodged a complaint with the police and in the process, he came to know that many more complaints were pending against Sood and the firm for defrauding people on the similar pretext.
Thereafter, the complainant made attempts to locate the opposite parties. However, the efforts yielded no result.
The complainant and his counsel failed to locate the address of the opposite parties to serve a notice.
The commission then accepted Ashish’s plea and ordered publication of the notice in two newspapers. However, the opposite parties failed to make an appearance before the commission.
In its judgment, the commission observed, “It is a case where a poor consumer has been looted by making false promises. His hard-earned money has been usurped by showing him false dreams.”
The commission added, “Neither his admission was arranged at an educational institute in Canada nor his travel visa was arranged to the said country. The facts show that the opposite parties are not only deficient in providing service but are also guilty of adopting unfair trade practice.”
The state commission thus directed Sood and his firm to refund Rs 23 lakh and pay Rs 1 lakh for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, as also deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.
In addition, the respondents have been directed to pay Rs 33,000 as litigation expenses.
1
6
8
9