DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

₌₌₌

Balraj Singh son of Sr.Sukhdev Singh r/o Village Kot Panech, P.O. Barmalipur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.

    ---Complainant

                 V E R S U S

Altus Education and Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.113, Level -1, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh through its Director/Authorized representative.

                      ---Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.P.D.GOEL,                   PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL,            MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

OP exparte.

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

         By this common order, we are disposing of two connected complaint cases, as detailed below, as both are having same controversy as well as similar question of facts and law.

2.       The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No. 552 of 2011 – Balraj Singh Versus Altus Education and Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd..

3.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that being attracted by the advertisement published in the newspaper (AnnexureC-1), he approached the OP on 10.11.2010 who informed him that OP are competent to obtain and arrange the work permit (VISA) for two years (Extendable) under various categories such as farming, hotel waiter and company supervisor, packing fruits and vegetables and driver in Canada. The salary was told $3000 (Rs.1,20,000/- per month). The complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the OP company for work permit visa to Canada and New Zealand and paid Rs.22000/- (Rs.10000/- as consultancy fee and Rs.12000/- as telegraphic transfer fee) vide receipts No.798 and 799 (Annexure C-3 and C-4). Besides this, the complainant was required to pay Rs.75000/- after getting the job letter by way of demand draft which include the embassy fee, medical, labour market opinion, Human Resource Skill and Development Canada etc. According to the complainant, on the receipt No.799, the charges were mentioned as documentation and file handling fee, but the documents were never submitted to the embassy and the file number had never been given to him. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP to know the status of the file and the date, on which the documents were forwarded to the embassy. The complainant was told to pay Rs.75000/- in case he wants to get the visa.  On 13.12.2010, the complainant was informed by the OP that his application had been accepted and also advised to deposit the processing fee. The complainant averred that one letter (Annexure C-5) was shown to him in which it was stated that the fee is refundable only after 6 months, if he is not successfully placed. Upon this, he gave demand draft of Rs.75000/- (Annexure C-7) to the OP and thereafter a contract of engagement dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure C-6) was entered between the parties. The complainant further averred that OP remained silent and so, he tried to contract the addressee shown in the acceptance letter but to no effect. According to the complainant, the OP unlawfully extracted the amount of Rs.75000/-.   Consequently, he contacted the OP to know the status of his file but OP told him that his case could not be forwarded and the amount would be refunded to him on 22.08.2011. Ultimately, the amount of Rs.60000/- was refunded only vide cheque No.017987 dated 16.09.2011  against the total amount of Rs.97000/-. Hence, this complaint.

4.       OP did not appear despite due service. Hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.10.2011.

5.      The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 

7.       The averments made in the complaint, as reproduced above in para No.3 of the order, stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant, as well as the Annexures C-1 to C-8.  Annexure C-1 is the copy of news item. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the schedule in the handwriting of the counselor of OP. Annexure C-3 and C-4 are the copies of the receipts No.798 and 799 vide which the complainant paid Rs.10000/- and Rs.12000/- to the OP. Annexure C-5 is the alleged acceptance letter of the complainant. Annexure C-6 is the copy of the contract agreement entered between the complainant and the OP. Annexure C-7 is the copy of the demand draft of Rs.75000/- paid by the complainant to the OP. Annexure C-8 is the copy of the letter dated 25.08.2011 written by the complainant to the OP for refund of the deposited amount. The complainant has specifically deposed in his affidavit that the OP failed to forward his case to the embassy and thus, it had refunded Rs.60000/- only instead of Rs.97000/-. Otherwise also, the allegations made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OP to contest the case. In our considered view, the OP has failed to render the promised services to the complainant and thus it has committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant is held entitled to the refund of total amount deposited by him with the OP.

C.C.No.551/2011-Harjit Singh Versus Altus Education and Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd..

8.       In this case, similar evidence has been led and almost identical allegations have been made against the OP as have been made in the C.C. No.552/2011.  In this case, the complainant has specifically stated that OP has failed to render the promised services and refund any amount despite his repeated requests.

Complaint Case No. 552 of 2011 – Balraj Singh Versus Altus Education and Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd..

9.       As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund the remaining amount of Rs.37,000/- to the complainant. OP is also directed to pay Rs.15000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

Complaint Case No. 551 of 2011 – Harjit Singh Versus Altus Education and Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd..

10.      As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is also allowed and the OP is directed to refund  Rs.97,000/- to the complainant. OP is also directed to pay Rs.15000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

11.      This order be complied with by OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to refund the entire amount to the respective complainant(s) along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint i.e. 14.09.2011 till its realization besides Rs.5000/- as lump sum compensation and litigation costs.

12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.