IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 07th day of February, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 29/2021 (filed on 02-02-2021)
Petitioner : Ambili Sivarajan,
Vadakettil
Ithithanam P.O.
Changanacherry
Kottayam - 686535
(Adv. Priya R. Chandran)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) The Managing Director,
Amster Group,
Kurup Tower,
Kodimatha P.O.
Kottayam – 686013
(Adv. K. Anil Kumar Ambady)
(2) The Manager,
Amster Group,
8th Floor, BMTC
Commercial Complex,
80th ft Road, 6th Block.
Koramangala, Bengaluru,
Karnataka - 560095
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant is working as a nurse in Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla with 8 years experience in the same hospital and 2 years in K.K. Women Hospital, Singapore. In 2017, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for availing the service of immigrating to Canada. The opposite parties assured the complainant that Canada EE Programme is a package programme and if she couldn’t succeed the said programme, she can opt for Qubec programme. Thus the complainant has entered into the programme of Canada Express entry as per the assurance of the 1st opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties, the complainant has to get the score of 7 for Canada Express Entry and score of 5 for Qubec programme. An assurance of repayment also was there. The complainant had preferred the Canada EE programme and paid an amount of 76,150/- on 20-02-2017. The complainant has scored 5 in IELTS exam. As the score was below 7, she decided to opt Qubec programme, then the opposite party informed her that no such programme existed there. Though the complainant approached the opposite parties several times for the refund of money, they did not turn up. All the costs for IELTS exam was afforded by the complainant only and no expense was incurred to the opposite parties. Though the complainant sent a lawyers notice to the opposite parties, they did not respond. The act of the opposite parties in violation of terms and conditions is deficiency in service on their part.
Upon notice, the 1st opposite party appeared and filed version. The 2nd opposite party inspite of receipt of notice did not care to appear or file version and hence set exparte.
The 1st opposite party in its version contented that it is not a recruiting agency but deals with permanent residency visas providing job assistance not job assurance. The complainant has totally misconceived the services offered by the opposite party. The opposite party never acted as a recruiting consultant. The Canada EE Programme clearly states how much score she should achieve during the process and the complainant was demanded to clear counselling on the process.
In the PR process, the decision of selecting the applicants, issuing visa etc. are fully according to the Canada government decision. The payment of INR 76,150/- is the advance payment for the PR process in which 30% of the amount is for the IRCC registered lawyer’s service fees, 18% of the amount was paid as tax and the remaining amount will be utilized for the applicant’s PR process.
The services included were well defined counselling sharing the documents, checklist as per the guideline of the ICCRC consultant. Sharing the format of documents as per the Canadian requirement that should be collected from the organizations, they worked a regular follow up for the clients that explains each and every need in every stage of documentation process. As a PR consultancy, the opposite parties are not providing jobs like the recruitment agencies but mainly focus on PR paper works and profile submission in the express entry pool. The 1st opposite party has not offered any job visa for the complainant. The complainant has not produced any piece of evidence to show that the opposite party offered job for her. Prior to the payment of Rs.76,150/- the opposite party provided a detailed counselling section including briefing of the process and service they provide. The amount paid has been utilized for processing the complainant’s application including govt. Tax also and cannot be recalled. The complainant joined for Canada Express entry programme. Permanent residency refers to a person’s resident status in a country where he is not a citizen of that country for an indefinite period. PR is based on education, experience, age and IELTS experience. The complainant joined with the opposite party after having a detailed counselling and eligibility assessment test through emigration lawyers. Moreover, the loss regarding permanent residenceship always change depending upon the govt. Policies of Canada. The opposite party has never cancelled the process of the complainant. The complainant has already admitted that she has signed the agreement after going through the clauses in the service agreement. Not only that the IELTS score obtained by the complainant was not enough to get PR. The opposite party can only provide guidance and counselling to get IELTS but cannot manipulate the IELTS score. The requirement of IELTS score to Canada would change from year to year or in accordance with the policy of the said countries administration procedure to which the opposite party is not answerable. The opposite party has never offered the complainant to provide Qubec programme. The opposite party had made the complainant aware that the IELTS was mandatory for the PR even in the initial stage of process. It is noted in the agreement also. The complainant failed to achieve the required score in IELTS as is evident from the document produced by the complainant herself and it is not because of the fault of the opposite party. The opposite party has extended their service to umpteen claims get PR positive thing. The complainant after accepting all the conditions in the agreement including the IELTS score has raised false allegation against the opposite party only because of her failure in attaining adequate score in IELTS. THERE IS no fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which had done from the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party. The complainant never showed any interest or made any request for the change of the Canada EE Programme to Qubec programme at the time of joining the EE Programme. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents, which are marked as Exts.A1 to A5 towards the evidence part. Though the opposite party was given ample opportunity, they failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
On the basis of above pleadings and evidence, we frame the issues as whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and if so what are the reliefs to be granted.
- The complainant’s case is that though she had applied for permanent residence in Canada to the opposite parties who were doing multinational migration permanent residency, study abroad services including emigration to Canada and Australia. According to her, the opposite parties assured that for Canada EE Programme a score of 7 was needed and if the complainant failed to achieve that score they would convert her application to Qubec programme. But later when she could get only a score of 5 in the IELTS the opposite party abstained from the above assurance of giving Qubec programme. The opposite party contented that they had never given such an assurance but they had informed the complainant that a score of 7 is mandatory for the Canada EE Programme.
- The complainant has filed an amendment application as IA No.35/2021. Though the said IA was allowed and the complainant was directed to carry out the amendment within 15 days, she did not care to carryout the required amendment.
- Upon a detailed perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, we see that Ext.A1 is a letter given by the Amster group, Kottayam. In A1, the preferred programme is Canada EE and nowhere in this document, any assurance of changing the programme to Qubec by the opposite party is seen. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by the opposite parties against the payment of Rs.76,150/- paid by the complainant towards Canada EE Programme. Ext.A3 to A5 are the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties and its postal records.
- Though the complainant raised the allegation that the opposite parties gave an assurance of changing the programme from Canada EE to Quebec on the event of the complainant getting a low score in IELTS, she has not produced any evidence to prove the same. The complainant has not produced the agreement made between the parties. So from the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that the opposite parties after giving an assurance of alternate programme on a low IELTS score have deceived the complainant when she got the score of 5 in IELTS instead of 7. In the absence of cogent evidence to prove the deficiency of service or unfair trade practice if any committed by the opposite parties, we are inclined to find the issues against the complainant.
Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 7th day of February, 2023
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of receipt No.100 dtd.20-02-2017 issued by Amster Group
A2 – Copy of receipt No.177 dtd.20-02-2017 by Amster Group
A3 – Copy of lawyers notice dtd.14-12-2020 to opposite parties
A4 – Copy of postal receipts
A5 – Acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar