Kerala State Consumer Commission Upholds Refund Order Against Immigration Consultancy, Imposes Additional Costs [Read Order]

Kerala: The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd., affirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam, which directed refund of fees, payment of compensation, and costs to a consumer who alleged deficiency in service in connection with Canadian Permanent Resident visa consultancy services.

The appeal arose from a consumer complaint filed by Ruksana Nazlin M., who had availed immigration consultancy services from Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and paid an amount of ₹76,190 on 30 November 2020. Out of this amount, ₹75,000 was paid towards processing fees for obtaining a Canadian Permanent Resident visa, while ₹1,190 was collected as an assessment fee. The complainant was assured that in the event she cancelled the plan, the amount of ₹75,000 would be refunded.

However, the consultancy later sent an email on 2 December 2020 enclosing a blank preliminary agreement format, already signed by its manager, stating that the amount would be treated as non-refundable. The agreement also referred to a future main agreement that was never placed before or signed by the complainant. The Commission noted that the money had been received even before any agreement was executed by the complainant, which cast serious doubt on the consultancy’s claim that the amount was contractually non-refundable.

The complainant further alleged that the opposite party failed to provide proper guidance and had merely created an ICES account for the purpose of Educational Credential Assessment. The application was rejected twice for being incomplete. Owing to financial difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant was unable to clear IELTS and ECA, without which the Permanent Resident documentation process could not commence. As no substantive processing had been initiated, she sought cancellation of the PR process and refund of the amount, which was refused. The consultancy suggested arbitration, but no arbitration agreement existed between the parties.

The District Commission allowed the complaint, holding the consultancy guilty of deficiency in service, and directed refund of ₹75,000 with 9% interest, compensation of ₹25,000, and costs of ₹5,000. Aggrieved, the consultancy approached the State Commission in appeal.

While considering the appeal, the State Commission strongly criticised the District Commission for having accepted the written version filed by the opposite party beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., the Commission reiterated that consumer fora have no power to extend the time for filing a response beyond the prescribed period. Although the written version ought to have been rejected, the Commission proceeded to evaluate the evidence by eschewing the belated version altogether.

On merits, the Commission found that no material had been produced to show that any substantive steps were taken by the consultancy towards Permanent Resident documentation, nor was there evidence of any loss suffered by it. The Commission held that retaining the amount without rendering the promised services amounted to unjust enrichment and deficiency in service. It also observed that the compensation and costs awarded by the District Commission were neither excessive nor disproportionate.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the Commission imposed additional costs of ₹10,000 on the appellant, payable to the complainant. It was further directed that the statutory deposit made by the appellant be released to the complainant and adjusted towards the amount awarded by the District Commission.

Case Details:

• Case Name: Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Ruksana Nazlin M.
• Forum: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
• Appeal Number: First Appeal No. 16 of 2024 (also referred to as SC/32/A/16/2024)
• Impugned Order: Order in C.C. No. 81 of 2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam
• Date of Decision: 9 January 2026
• Coram: Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member), K. R. Radhakrishnan (Member)
• Appellant: Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
• Respondent: Ruksana Nazlin M.
• Counsel for Appellant: Adv. D. R. Rajesh
• Counsel for Respondent: Party in person

[Read Order]