IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 31^stday of December, 2021

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 34/2020 (filed on 14-02-2020)

Petitioner                                          :         Kiran Thomas,

                                                                   S/o. Late Shaji Jacob,

                                                                   Arangathupeedika House,

                                                                   Arppookkara P.O. 

                                                                   Kottayam – 686 008.
                                                                   (Adv. Akash K.R.)

                                                                             Vs.                            

Opposite Party                                 :        Amster Immigration Overseas

Pvt. Ltd.  Head Office,

Kurup’s Tower,

Kodimatha P.O.

Kottayam – 686013.

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

          The case is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The case of the complainant is as follows,

          Complainant is a graduate in Mechanical Engineering and was working with MRF as Executive Production Engineer.  During the 1^st quarter of 2018, canvased by the advertisement of the opposite party, complainant has sent his certificate and other documents for verification to the opposite party on 24-04-2018 and 25-04-2018.  After the confirmation of the eligibility, as demanded by the opposite party the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.23,600/- to the opposite party as initial payment.  Thereafter, for the month of September 2018, the complainant attended the IELTS examination and secured a score of 7.5 as overall band and sent the score card to the opposite party on 21-09-2018.  After that it was informed by the opposite party that they will proceed with Express Entry along with Provisional Nominee Program options after creating the profile.  In the month of October 2018, the opposite party demanded for an amount of Rs.75,000/- to create the profile and on 20-10-2018 the complainant transferred the said amount to the account of the opposite party.  It was averred in the complaint that though the complainant paid the amounts as demanded by the opposite party, they did not care to create the account for the complainant.  It is further averred in the complaint that though the process of creating an account is simple task which would take a time of less than one hour, till December 2018, the complainant waited for the same and on 03-01-2019 he sent a concern mail to the opposite party for doing the needful.  In receipt of the said mail, the opposite party replied on 05-01-2019  asking for filling up another Personal Information Format just for their office requirement.   On the very same day itself, the complainant filled up the same and sent it back to the opposite party.  However he did not create the profile.  Thus on 14-01-2019, the complainant asked an update on the status of this application.  But the opposite party did not provide the same.  After on 15-01-2019, the complainant sent a mail to the opposite party asking for refund of the amount paid by him.  Thus on 17-01-2019, the opposite party sent a service agreement to the complainant, but the complainant did not agree to the same as already he is disappointed with the service rendered by them.  Though the complainant did not enter into the agreement prepared by the opposite party, the oppositeparty on 19-01-2019 created a profile for the complainant, but they did not provide the Login ID, Password and other details of the profile to the complainant.  It is further averred that the opposite party did not reveal to the complainant that whether they have opted Provisional Nominee Program for the complainant.

          It is alleged in the complaint that after the creation of the profile, though the complainant contacted the opposite party for clarification regarding the status of this application, his attempts were became vain.  According to the complainant, the opposite party after procuring the charges by them kept on avoiding the complainant and opposite party is not showing any signs of arranging permanent residence or refunding the amounts collected from the complainant.  The complainant on 16-07-2019 through e-mail asking for refund of amount paid by him and thereafter on 16-09-2017 sent another e-mail demanding the return of amount.  On 20-07-2019 Mr. Vinu, Processing Manager of the opposite party reveals the fact that the opposite party provided a deficient service to the complainant.  The complainant as on the date of the complaint, has paid with the opposite party an amount of Rs.98,600/- and also spent an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the World Education Services for the comparison and verification of certificates.  It is alleged in the complaint that the act of the opposite party in procuring amounts from the complainant and not rendering the services as offered at the time of collecting the amounts is an inadequacy, shortcoming and imperfection in the quality, nature and manner of the services and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Due to the act of the opposite party, the complainant and his family were put too much mental agony and hardship and the opposite party is liable to compensate for the same.  Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to refund Rs.98,600/- and Rs.15,000/- along with 12% interest and for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

          Though the notice was duly served to the opposite party, the opposite party did not care to appear before this Commission or to contest the case.  Hence the opposite party was declared as exparte.

          Evidence in this case consist of proof affidavit of complainant in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A6 were marked.

          On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record, we would like to consider following point.

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and whether he is entitled any reliefs?

Point

          The complainant, who is a graduate in Mechanical Engineering and working as Executive Production Engineer in MRF had sent his certificate and other documents on 24-04-2018 and 25-04-2018 to the opposite party for verification in order to obtain a permanent residence in Canada.  The complainant had handed over his certificate and other valuable documents to the opposite partyas canvased by the advertisement of the opposite party that they would create a profile for him to obtain a permanent residence in Canada.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the E-mail communication between the complainant and the officials of the opposite party dated 25-04-2018.  It is evident from the e-mail dtd.25-04-2018 that the opposite party had informed the complainant that they have received the profile of the complainant for primary verification for the eligibility of Canada Express Entry along with Provincial Nominee Program and oppositeparty assured the complainant that he is eligible for PR program.  On 27-07-2018 opposite party had intimated the complainant that they have received initial payment of Rs.23,600/-.  Ext.A2 proves that on 25-04-2018, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.23,600/- to the opposite party and Ext.A3 proves that the said amount has received by the oppositeparty and a package is offered to the complainant by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- for Canada Express Entry.  Ext.A4, the acknowledgement letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant proves that they have received Rs.75,000/- from the complainant as the 2^nd payment for the Canada Express Entry Package.  According to the complainant, though the opposite party had received a total amount of Rs.98,600/- from the complainant they did not take any profile which is necessary to obtain a permanent residence in Canada.  It is further averred in the complaint that though the complainant had contacted the opposite party in several times, the opposite party did not provide a password, login Id and other details of the personal information format, it is alleged to be created by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.  On verification of Ext.A1 series e-mails, we can see that on 17-01-2019 the opposite party has mailed a service agreement to the complainant for his profile.  On verification of records, the service agreement was signed by the oppositeparty even after the lapse of 1 year from receiving the initial payment by the complainant for the process for a permanent residence in Canada.

On going through Ext.A1 series mail communication we cannot see any explanation from the opposite party for the inordinate delay of one year in processing the documents which are necessary to obtain a permanent residence in Canada to the complainant for sending a service agreement to the complainant after one year.  The mail conversation dated 20-01-2020, which is sent by the opposite party to the complainant states that the complainant had entered in the next stage of the process and opportunities are waiting for the complainant.  It can be seen from the available evidence that though the relevant documents along with certificates and initial payment been received by the opposite party during the month of April, 2018,even after the lapse of 2 years, the opposite party sent an e-mail communication to the complainant that the process of Express Entry visa is still going on.  Ext.A5 is MalayalaManorma daily dtd.15-03-18 (page 5-6) dtd.04-06-19 (page 5-6)  dtd.8-03-18 (page 7-8) and dtd.03-07-18 (page7-8)

proves that the opposite party is in the habit of canvasing the individuals by publishing an attractive advertisement offering opportunities in Canada with spot assessment and interview.  On evaluation of available evidence, we can see that the opposite party has not rendered a time bound processing procedure to the complainant for obtaining a permanent residence in Canada as offered by them.  There is no evidence before us to show that the inordinate delay to process and obtain a permanent residence in Canada in favour of the complainant was due to the wilful negligence and latches of the complainant.  There is no contrary evidence before us to disbelieve the case of the complainant.  Thus we are of the opinion that the act of the oppositeparty amounts to inadequacy and imperfection in the manner and performance of service which are offered by the opposite party to the complainant.  It is evident that the complainant had spent Rs.98,600/- to obtain permanent residence in Canada with the belief that the opposite party will provide all assistance and time bound service to him to obtain a permanent resident visa in Canada to buildup future carrier.  No doubt that due to the deficient act of opposite party, the complainant had puttoo much mental agony and hardship and financial loss for which the opposite party is liable to compensate.  The complainant had not produced any evidence to show that he had paid Rs.15,000/- for the verification and comparison of his service as claimed in the complaint.  Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and pass following Order.

1. We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.98,600/- to the complainant with an interest of 6% from 04-02-2020, which is the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay  Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.

The Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31^stday of December,  2021.

Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R. MemberSd/-

            Sri. K.M. Anto, Member               Sd/-  

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1 series - E-mail communications

A2  - Statement of account from 01-01-18 to 30-12-18

A3 –Copy of letter dtd.26-06-18 by opposite party to petitioner

A4 – Copy of letter dtd.20-10-18 by opposite party to petitioner

A5 – MalayalaManorma daily dtd.15-03-18 (page 5-6) dtd.04-06-19 (page 5-6)  dtd.8-03-18 (page 7-8) and dtd.03-07-18 (page7-8)

A6 –CD

                                                                                        By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent