Date of Filing: 06.05.19
Date of Order:28-5-2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM. (PGD (ADR) MEMBER
On this the Thursday the 28th .day,of May, 2020
C.C.No.177 /2019
Between
Mohammed A.M. Al Saiqali,
S/o.Ahmed Mohammad Al Saiqali,
Aged 48 years, R/o. 12-2-7/8 F No.303
Sanruydhi Apartments, Ravindranagar,
Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad – 500 061, Hyderabad.
……Complainant
And
- Kansas Immigration Services Pvt.Ltd.,(Begumpet branch),
# 307, 2nd Floor, Kamala Towers, above Mody Ford,
Near NTR statue , X road Begumpet, Secunderabad – 500 003,
Hyderabad, Telangana,
Rep.by Mr.Ramiah a Branch Manager and Mrs.Jythi Surabhi
- Kansas Immigration Swervices Pvt.Ltd.,( Somajiguda branch)#104, 1st Floor, V.V.Vintage Boulevard Raj Bhavan road,
Somajiguda branch, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 082.
Rep.by Mr.Ramiah a Branch Manager and Mrs.Jythi Surabhi
….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainants : Party in person
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Mohammed Wasi
O R D E R
(By Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER on behalf of the Bench)
1) The above complaint has been filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging that failure to refund the amount paid for rendering Canada immigration services under agreement dated 8.12.2018 and having considered the request to transfer the same along with consideration paid there under and accordingly entered into subsequent agreement dated 8.2.2019 qua German job seeker visa services . Later, non consideration of the request of the complainant to refund the consideration amount paid amounts to deficiency in service as also adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as such praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant:
- Amount paid by the complainant towards
Immigration Services Rs.70,500/-
- Amount paid for eligibility test Rs. 1,180/-
- Seeking compensation towards mental agony Rs.20,000/-
- Compensation for loss suffered by the complainant Rs.18,320/-
- Compensation on deficiency of services and
Waste of time Rs.20,000/-
________________
Rs. 1,30,000/-
________________
2) The averments of the complaint in brief are:-
That the complainant having entered into an agreement dated 8.12.2018 with the opposite party for seeking Canada immigration services paid an amount of Rs.70,500/- and also, in addition, paid an amount of Rs.11,180/- towards eligibility test . The request of the complainant to transfer the said services to German job Visa Services was considered and thereby entered into another agreement dated 08.02.2019. Later the complainant requested the OP to refund the consideration amount paid for not rendering the services as required, was stated to be not conceded. The complainant further alleges that all his mails and calls turned futile in getting refund of the said consideration amount, as such this complaint has been filed with a prayer to grant reliefs as stated supra.
3) VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
The opposite parties filed their written version resisting the complaint, stating that a slot, as per the requirement of the complainant, was to be booked for German job seeker visa which was not in the hands of opposite parties and the same could be done according to the availability of the same on the web site. After initiating the process for rendering services, as per the agreement, for the Canada immigration services, considering the request of the complainant, the said services together with consideration paid there under was transferred to the German job seeker visa and entered into an agreement dated 8.2.2019 accordingly. The complainant on the pretext of causing delay in rendering services requested the opposite parties to stop and refund the total consideration amount paid. The opposite parties state that an Officer was assigned, recap was explained , ECA and Educational prudential systems were sent through mail and ER-application are explained. Thus the opposite parties contend that they started rendering services accordingly. At this stage, the request of the complainant for refunding the amount paid could not be considered as per the agreements entered into by them. Under the circumstances, the opposite parties prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint.
4) During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit supported by Ex. A1 to A5 documents while the Ops filed their written version supported by Ex.B1 to B8 documents Written arguments have been filed by the complainant. Heard oral submissions of both the parties.
5.0) On perusal of the material available on record, considering the arguments advanced and oral submissions of both the parties, the points, now, to be answered for arrival of the just conclusion, are:
5.1 : Whether there is any deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not rendering the services as required and not refunding the amount as demanded ?
5.2: Whether the complainant is entitled to any amount as claimed in the complaint,
5.3 . To what relief?
Point No.5.1 & 5.2: From the record, it can be seen that the complainant and opposite parties have entered into two agreements one on dated 8.2.2018 and the other on dt. 8.2.2019 relating to rendering the immigration services, where the former one is with regard to Canada immigration services and the later one is with regard to German job seeker visa services. The Ops considered the request of the complainant to transfer the consideration amount paid under former agreement to the later one. It is very clear that the opposite parties have initiated rendering services for both the agreements on their part but despite that it is the claim of the complainant to get refund of the consideration amount paid to the opposite parties. As the opposite parties having initiated rendering the services but could not book the slot as per the requirement of the complainant which is not in their hands but could do as per the availability of the same on website. The parties to the agreements are bound to follow the terms and conditions of the same. In view of the Clause 1 (i) of the Agreement dt. 8.2.2019. the Complainant is not entitled to get back any of the amount paid and the opposite parties are not liable to refund the same. The above Clause says that in case the complainant withdraws from the agreement. he is not entitled to get back any amount. As such, in view of the fact that the opposite parties have commenced rendering services as per the agreement entered into and withdrawal of the complainant from the same, the complainant is not entitled to any amount as claimed in the complaint. Thus answer to these points are given against the complainant but in favour of the opposite parties.
Point No.5.3.:- In the result, in view of the explanation given under 5.1. and 5.2. this complaint is dismissed without any costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 28th day of May, 2020
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMIND
Nil
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant
Ex.A1 – Agreement of service
Ex.A2 – Transfer of service dt.8.2.2019
Ex.A3 – Receipt for Rs.1, 180/- dt. 8.12.2018
Ex.A4 – Receipt for Rs.70,500/- dt.10.12.2018
Ex.A5 – Gmail correspondence
Exs. filed on behalf of the opposite parties
Ex.B1 – Agreement of Service, dt.8.12.2018
Ex.B2 – Orientation recap
Ex.B3- Inter5nal Evaluation report
Ex..B4 – Explained on how to get the sealed transcripts
dt.17.12.2018
Ex.B5 – SINP Province process details dt. 28.1.2018
Ex.B6 – Copy of Transfer of Agreement dt. 8.2.2019.
Ex.A7 – Checklist for the Germany Job Seeker Visa Dt. 14th Feb,
2019.
Ex.A8 – Mail regarding requirement of Documents dt. 12.4.2019.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
