CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.47/2016
SH. RAJESH J KAMBLE
S/O. LATE SH. JANARDAN J.KAMBLE
HOUSE NO. 220, KH-753/20, NEW COLONY
(BEHIND KUBER BUILDING)
MAIDAN GARHI
NEW DELHI-110068…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S. ABHINAV OUTSOURCING PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
307, DEVIKA TOWERS, 3rd FLOOR,
BUILDING NO. 06,
NEHRU PLACE,NEW DELHI-110019.
ALSO AT:
M/S. ABHINAV OUTSOURCING PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
UG-5, DEVIKA TOWERS,
6-NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019.
- THE DIPLOMAT/PRINCIPAL OFFICER (IMMIGRATION)
CANADIAN HGH COMMISSION
7/8, SHANTIPATH, CHANAKYAPURI,
NEW DELHI-110021..…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Date of Institution-02/02/2016
Date of Order- 04/11/2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA-President
The complainant has filed a present complaint seeking refund of Rs. 50,000/- i.e. fees paid to the OP 1 being M/s Abhinav Outsourcing with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The complainant is also seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the mental torture, pain and agony, loss of respect and humiliation. The complainant had also initiated proceedings against OP2 being The Diplomat/Principal officer (Immigration), Canadian High Commission however, vide order dated 22.03.16 proceedings against OP 2were dropped.
- It is stated by the complainant that he approached the OP with assurance / condition of being provided end to end services for complete work on Canadian Permanent Residence Visa.
- A contract was signed by the complainant on 22.09.2006, which, as per the complainant was designed/ drafted in the interest and benefit of OP1.
- It is stated that after the signing of the contract, a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the OP however, the OP could not complete the assigned work i.e. could not provide Canadian Permanent Residence Visa for a long period of 7 years from 2006 to 2013.
- It is stated by the complainant that apart from Rs. 50,000/- being paid to OP, the complainant had also deposited extra fees to the Canadian Government which the Canadian Government have refunded with interest to the complainant.
- It is further stated by the complainant that the OP is also supposed to refund the total fees as per the contract, if not full payment, then half fees could be refunded, out of natural justice. It is stated by the complainant that the payment and refund clause was tactfully designed that helped the OP to cheat the complainant in the garb of technicality of contract which is arbitrary and ambiguous in nature.
- As per the complainant the act of OP is amounting to monopolistic restrictive trade practice which is illegal and is against the interest and welfare of the consumers.
- It is further stated by the complainant that despite various opportunities given to the OP, OP has not paid anything to the complainant.
- Per contra, the OP in their reply have stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action and that the complainant have not been able to show any deficiency on the part of OP in providing service.
- The OP has also raised the preliminary objection that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to decide the present dispute as it relates to breach of contract and not deficiency of service.
- On merits, it is stated that the complainant had approached the OP1 seeking consultancy and guidance on preparation of his application form for permanent residence Visa to Canada under the Canadian Federal Skilled Worker Category.
- OP1 assisted the complainant in compiling of documents and filing his application that the Canadian High Commission which was acknowledged by the Canadian High Commission vide its letter dated 21.11.2006.
- Due to the change in law of the Canadian Government in the year 2012, the said Government terminated all application made before 27.02.2008 in cases wherein selection decision had not been made by the immigration officer before 29.03.2012 accordingly, the application of the complainant was also terminated.
- This was informed by the said department of the Canadian Government vide its letter dated 24.05.2013, complainant about the change in law and termination of his application for permanent resident Visa.
- It is stated by OP 1 that he had completed and performed all its duties as per contract of engagement signed between complainant and OP1 hence there was no deficiency of service on the part of OP1.
- It is further stated by the OP that the contract of engagement dated 12.09.2006 at Annexure 2 enumerates the duties of OP1 and which does not include the duty of OP1 to pursue the application of the complainant with the Canadian High Commission. In fact, Annexure 4 of the said contract states that the processing delays of the application for Canadian Resident Visa are at the sole discretion and pleasure of Visa office, Canada and the advisory i.e. OP 1 cannot hasten up the process.
- It is further submitted by the OP that the complainant was explained that OP1 does not have any control in the criteria or the change in the Criteria of the Canadian High Commission.
- It is further stated that the complainant is not entitled to any refund, as the case of the complainant does not fall in any of the conditions mentioned in the refund clause at Annexure 6 of the contract of engagement.
Rejoinder was not filed by the complainant and has been recorded in the order dated 13.01.2017. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments.
This Commission is of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as it had performed its duties as provided under the contract. The OP cannot be held liable for rejection of the application of the complainant on account of the change in criteria by the Canadian authorities which was changed after the gap of 6 years. Therefore, no deficiency can be attributed to the OP.
As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract of engagement, it is clearly stated that the advisor i.e. the OP1 is not responsible for the Visa which is discretion and pleasure of Visa Office.
Therefore, the present complaint is found to be devoid of merits and is dismissed without any costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.
Order be uploaded on the website.
