Hyderabad: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has directed an overseas immigration consultancy to pay ₹1.10 lakh as compensation and ₹15,000 towards litigation costs to a Hyderabad man, after finding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in processing his overseas visa and work permit application.In its Aug 3 order, the commission held Hash Overseas consultancy liable after complainant Naveen Kumar Muchintala alleged that the firm failed to provide the assured service of converting a visitor visa into a work permit, despite collecting service charges and promising to complete the process within 90 days.Muchintala, a private employee from Dilsukhnagar, initially approached the Ameerpet-based consultancy for a Canada visit-to-work visa conversion.Canada application rejected over filing errorAccording to the complaint, Muchintala paid ₹50,000 in service fees and ₹10,911 towards immigration charges. He also claimed to have borrowed ₹10 lakh to maintain the bank balance required for the visa process, incurring a monthly interest burden.He alleged that his Canada visa application was rejected due to incorrect filing by the consultancy. Subsequently, an Australian visitor visa was obtained, but the promised conversion into a work permit was not completed, he alleged.The consultancy denied any deficiency in service, arguing that work visa approval depended on employers and that changes in Australian govt policy had affected the conversion.It said Muchintala had voluntarily changed his preference from Canada to Australia. According to the consultancy, conversion of the Australian visitor visa into a work permit could not be completed because his qualifications did not match job requirements and due to changes in Australian govt policy.The respondent also contended that Muchintala had paid only for processing the visitor visa and had not paid separately for conversion into a work permit. It argued that the conversion service was therefore free and did not fall within the consumer commission’s jurisdiction.The commission also recorded that, in its Dec 23, 2024 reply notice, the consultancy had agreed to refund ₹50,000, although there was no refund clause in the agreement. Muchintala declined to accept the amount.Visitor visa without work permit rendered exercise ‘futile’: CommissionThe commission noted that it was undisputed that the first Canada visa application was rejected due to an error by an employee of the consultancy.It found that the service agreement covered immigration and work visa processing and held that merely obtaining a visitor visa without carrying out the promised work permit conversion defeated the purpose for which Muchintala had engaged the consultancy.The commission also noted that the work permit conversion process had been halted following changes in Australian govt regulations and that the agreed service could not be completed due to changed circumstances.It was observed that providing a visitor visa without the promised conversion rendered the entire exercise ‘futile’ and did not fulfil the intention of the contract.The commission held that failure to provide the service assured at the time of agreeing amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.Allowing the complaint in part, the commission directed Hash Overseas Consultancy to pay ₹1.10 lakh as compensation and ₹15,000 towards legal and litigation expenses.The amounts must be paid within 45 days. In case of default, the compensation amount will carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.
