January 10, 2026 : The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd., affirming an earlier order directing the firm to refund service fees to a client after failing to initiate any substantive visa processing.
The appeal arose from a complaint filed by Ruksana Nazlin M, who had approached the company in November 2020 for assistance in obtaining a Canadian Permanent Resident visa. She paid a total of ₹76,190, comprising ₹75,000 as processing fees and ₹1,190 as assessment charges. According to the complainant, she was assured that the processing fee would be refundable if the visa process was cancelled.
A Bench comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member) and K.R. Radhakrishnan (Member) noted that the money was collected even before the execution of any agreement by the complainant. Two days after receiving the payment, the firm emailed a blank preliminary agreement stating that the amount would be treated as non-refundable and referring to a main agreement that was never placed before or signed by the complainant.
The Commission recorded that the only step taken by the firm was the creation of an ICES account for Educational Credential Assessment, which remained incomplete and was rejected twice. Mandatory prerequisites such as IELTS and ECA were never completed due to the complainant’s financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic, making it impossible for the firm to commence Permanent Resident documentation.
When the complainant sought cancellation of the process and a refund, the firm refused and instead suggested keeping the matter in abeyance and proposed arbitration. The Commission rejected this contention, observing that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties.
Upholding the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam, the State Commission held that retaining the entire processing fee without initiating any real work or suffering any loss amounted to unfair enrichment and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. It found no justification for treating the fee as non-refundable when no substantive service had been rendered.
The Commission therefore confirmed the District Commission’s directions to refund ₹75,000 with 9 percent interest, pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹5,000 as litigation costs. It also imposed an additional cost of ₹10,000 on the appellant in the appeal, directing that the statutory deposit be adjusted towards the amount payable to the complainant.
Cause Title: Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Ruksana Nazlin M
Case No.: FA No. 16/2024 (SC/32/A/16/2024)
Coram: Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member), K.R. Radhakrishnan (Member)
