India’s national consumer commission has upheld a refund and compensation order in a dispute involving a man who paid an immigration consultancy for help securing a job offer in Canada.
The customer paid about ₹4.7 lakh across 2013 and 2014 after being told he would receive assistance toward a Canadian job offer within 15 to 18 months. The commission’s order requires the consultancy to return ₹1.8 lakh and USD 4,400, in addition to ₹1 lakh in compensation and ₹10,000 in litigation expenses.
The commission dismissed the consultancy’s challenge to an earlier state-level order. Its decision turned on whether the firm could show evidence that it had provided the service it had agreed to deliver.
What the customer said
The customer said he signed agreements in September 2013 and later made payments to the consultancy and an associated company in Dubai. He said no job offer followed and that his requests for updates were not answered.
The consultancy disputed the claim that it had failed to provide services. It said it submitted the customer’s profile to Canada’s Job Bank in October 2015 and argued that employers’ decisions were outside its control.
The commission noted that the agreement provided nine months for a job offer, while the profile was submitted much later. It found that the firm had not adequately explained the delay or produced sufficient evidence of the work it said it had carried out.
Why the evidence mattered
The firm argued that it had performed its contractual role and that it could not guarantee an employer would select the customer or that immigration authorities would approve a visa.
The commission’s decision focused on the firm’s evidence of its own actions. It said the consultancy could not rely only on the customer’s failure to obtain a job or immigration approval when it had not provided positive evidence of the efforts it claimed to have made.
The distinction matters in service disputes. A consultancy may not control an employer’s hiring decision, but it can still be expected to show that it performed the work promised under its agreement.
The limitation issue
The consultancy also argued that the customer’s complaint was filed too late. The commission rejected that argument based on the communications between the parties.
It noted further exchanges in 2018 and said the customer had not been told that all efforts were over or that no further action could be taken. On the facts of this case, the commission found that the complaint was within the applicable limitation period.
The outcome followed a long process. The original agreement dates back to 2013, and the final commission decision dismissed the firm’s revision petition after reviewing the earlier order and the record.
A reminder for consumers
The ruling offers a practical lesson for people considering overseas job-placement or immigration services: agreements, payment receipts and written updates can become important evidence if a dispute arises.
Customers should be able to understand what a consultancy promises to do, what it does not control, and how progress will be documented. A promised job, visa or immigration result may depend on decisions by employers or governments, so the firm’s specific obligations should be clear.
This ruling concerns the facts of one case and does not establish that all immigration consultancies operate the same way. Here, the commission found the firm’s evidence of its claimed work inadequate and upheld the refund and compensation order.