Last Updated on March 12, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Canam Consultants has faced multiple consumer complaints regarding service deficiencies, particularly in immigration and student visa cases, with allegations of non-refunded fees and failure to inform clients about application rejections. Past cases involved claims for refunds of over INR 1 Lakh and compensation.

Key Details and Complaint Areas:

Common Issues: Complaints often center on negligence in processing applications, leading to financial losses for clients.
Past Case (2010): A consumer dispute was filed regarding an immigration application to Canada where the company allegedly failed to properly process the application.
Past Case (2018): A complainant reported that Canam failed to inform a college about a visa rejection, resulting in a deduction of CAD 2000 from the student.
Refund Policy: CanamPrep has a specific refund policy requiring 80% attendance and strict compliance, with clauses for force majeure events.
Legal Action: Consumers have previously taken cases to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

How to File a Complaint:

Contact Canam: Use their official channels, such as the helpline or email, to seek a resolution.
Alternative Redressal: If unsatisfied, complaints can be lodged through the National Consumer Helpline.
Legal Remedies: Consumer complaints can be filed through the relevant consumer courts for deficiencies in service

APPEAL BEFORE STATE CONSUMER COMMISSION AGAINST IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS Canam Consultants Consumer Complaint Immigration Case wherein Appeal upheld.

Also Read- Navtej Singh vs Canam Consultants Ltd on 6 December, 2010 Let’s have the case here- Judgement Digest: Navtej Singh s/o S.Lal Singh resident of #3114, Sector 71, Mohalivs. Canam Consultants Ltd., SCO No.83-84, Sector 17-D,ChandigarhAlso Read- Akshay Bhatia v. Canam Consultants Ltd – CaseMine Case Briefing:

Present appeal is filed by appellant against order dated 14.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short “District Forum”).
On 13.10.2003, appellant/complainant signed an agreement with respondent for applying immigration to Canada as a Permanent Resident (General Skills) and it was settled that any requirement/information by the immigration regarding any deficiency in the documents shall be informed to the complainant through the company.
Required fees of 20,000/- to initiate immigration process and another payment of 15,000/- was deposited to the company vide on dated 02.02.2004.
As per Performa, all the documents were submitted by the complainant in Dec’2003 and respondent prepared and filed the required papers for immigration and sent it to immigration office on 18.01.2004.

Also Read-Immigration Firm Visa Complaint – Legalseva.net

The immigration office asked for various documents i.e., updated IMM0008 Schedules 1 and 3, proof of experience, proof of education, relative in Canada, proof of language skills, if your spouse is to accompany you to Canada, proof of applicant/complainant spouse’s education, police authorities for applicant/complainant and all accompanying family members, travel history forms for applicant and accompanying family members and copies of passports for all accompanying family members.
After waited for 45 days to get the information and for non-receipt of any information, the High Commission of Canada refused the immigration to the complainant vide letter dated 14.6.2008.
In spite of several reminders through email and telephonically by respondent, complainant had not submitted the documents and violate clause 12 of Retainer Agreement.
Both parties let their evidence in support of their contentions.

Also Read- Five booked for immigration fraud – Tribune India

Judgement of the case:

The documents placed on record by respondent are not forged and fabricated as alleged by appellant. The facts and circumstances show that the OP has sufficiently communicated the complainant regarding the submission of the documents with the Canadian High Commission for the grant of visa. Thus, all these documents placed on record shows that the complainant is taking a false and baseless ground of being not intimated by the OP, rather it is the complainant who failed to submit the same well in time and thus for this reason, the visa could not be granted to the complainant. The learned District Forum has rightly concluded that the complainant had been duly communicated. The remarks given by the learned District Forum in para no. 11 of the impugned order are expunged and rest of the order is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Also Read- WWICS Immigration Consultancy Consumer Complaint

For case specific advice, please contact top best expert immigration lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.