Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (North) vide its Order dated 25-01-2017 allowed the complaint case bearing no. CC/173/2014.  Aggrieved with such decision of the Forum below, this Appeal is preferred by the OPs, i.e., Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that he hired the services of the OPs to look after his immigration matter and executed an agreement with them in this regard on 14-07-2002.  As per the said agreement and also as per verbal instruction of the OP No. 2, he  paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to it on that day.  Subsequently, on 10-08-2002, as per the direction of the OP No. 2, he also paid US$ 1,500/- to the OP No. 3. Despite this, vide its letter/email dated 27-11-2013, the OP No. 2 communicated the Complainant that, because of sudden changes in the Immigration Rules of Canada, his application could not be processed and offered to refund a meagre sum of US$ 500.  Complaint lodged with the OPs being failed to evoke any positive response, the complaint case was filed.

Case of the OP Nos. 1&2 is that, the case of the Complainant was duly prepared and filed in the best possible manner with the Canadian High Commission on 01-03-2004 and the Complainant was allotted a file no. Thus, these OPs rendered all the services which the Complainant was entitled to in order to get his case processed by the said High Commission.  However, as ill luck would have it, the Canadian Government introduced a new Act under which all the applications made before 27-02-2008 were terminated by operation of law.  Since the application of the Complainant was received by the Canadian High Commission on 03-08-2004, his case was also terminated by the operation of law.  It is further submitted that the case of the Complainant got delayed due to huge backlog of cases as well as changes in immigration rules.  These OPs also pointed out that the Canadian High Commission informed the Complainant that 33 months would be required for initial screening of his application.  Denying any sort of deficiency in their services, these OPs claimed that in terms of Clause 7 of the agreement dated 14-07-2002, the Complainant was not entitled to any refund.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard at sufficient length in respect of the present dispute.  We have also gone through the material on record. 

Admittedly, an agreement was inked in between the parties on 14-07-2002, whereupon on receipt of requisite advance, the Appellants agreed to render professional service to the Respondent, precisely, preparation and submission of Respondent’s immigration case for Canadian permanent resident visa.  Also admitted is the fact that Respondent’s application was submitted to the Office of the Canadian High Commission on 01-03-2004.  It is indeed surprising that the Appellants took nearly two years to prepare Respondent’s application.  This is sheer negligence on the part of the Appellants.  The Ld. District Forum correctly laid bare the lacunae of the Appellants in this regard.  Surprisingly, the Appellants have not offered any explanation in the matter. Although the Appellants sought to avoid any liability in view of the stipulations contained under Clause 8 and 9 of the subject agreement executed in between the parties, we afraid, the same does not in anyway empower the Appellants to take so much time to simply fill up the application form and submit it before the concerned authority together with requisite particulars.

There can be no manner of doubt had the Appellants acted with due alacrity, the Respondent could avert the axe that fallen upon him.  The Appellant cannot abdicate their responsibility for the misfortune of the Respondent.

Ld. Advocate though questioned the authority of the Ld. District Forum to adjudicate the complaint case, fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Skypay Couriers Limited v. Tata Chemicals Limited, (2000) 5 SCC 294, Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports, (2011) 10 SCC 316, and M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, 2013 (4) CPR 345 (SC), we state that arbitration clause in a contract is no bar to adjudicate a complaint case.

There being no merit in this Appeal, the same fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.