STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.   World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., (WWICS Ltd.) Head Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali, through its Chairman & Managing Director B.S.Sandhu

2.   Manager, M/s. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., S.C.O. No.2415-2416, (Near Aroma Hotel), Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

3.   Managing Director, M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Head Office, FZCO, Office No.315-316, West Wing-3, Dubai Airport Free Zone, Dubai (UAE), through its authorized agent/partner M/s. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Head Office: A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.

……Appellants

                                V E R S U S

Anil Kumar Kisana son of Sh.M.R.Rajput, Aged 36 years, R/o H.No.723/17, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate for the appellants.

                Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs as under:-

“The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum since 25.9.2008 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.  The OPs are also directed to refund US $5200 and US $1284 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum since 20.11.2008 and 13.2.2009 respectively till the said amount is refunded to the complainant.  The OPs shall also pay Rs.one lac as compensation as referred to above alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.  If the above amount is not paid to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the OPs would pay it also alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 4.11.2009 till its payment to the complainant.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, on being allured by the advertisements of the OPs (now appellants), for sending persons abroad, visited OP No.1 (now appellant no.1), which after checking his documents, told him that he was eligible for immigration and business Visa to Czech Republic. On such assurance, given by OP-1, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.35,000/-, on 25.09.2008, to the OPs vide cheque Ann.C-1 & receipt C-2, was issued by them, for his immigration/business Visa to Czech Republic.  The OPs had assured him, that the entire procedure of processing the business immigration to Czech Republic, would take five to six months only.  All the requisite documents were submitted by the complainant, to the OPs, alongwith 5200 US$ i.e. Rs.2,57,338/-, as per the Indian Currency, on 20.11.2008, vide annexure C4, but despite all that they did not even process the application of the complainant. The OPs asked him to deposit 1284 US $ i.e. Rs.63,397/-,  as per the Indian Currency, which amount was too deposited with the OPs vide Ann.C-5 on 13.02.2009.  However, even after receipt of the amount aforesaid, the OPs did nothing to process the case of the complainant. It was further stated that even the first stage of registering a Company, was not achieved, which was assured to be done, within one month from 25.09.2008. It was further stated that numerous mails, were written by the complainant, as well as, his father to the OPs, in respect of his immigration case but without any result.  It was further stated that, thus, being aggrieved, against the attitude of the OPs, the complainant requested them to refund his amount vide letter dated 3.7.2009 (Ann.C-7), but they failed to do so. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that the complainant and his family members, had to suffer a great mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss, on account of the aforesaid acts of the OPs.  

3.               When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

4.               The OPs, in their written reply, stated that the complainant had entered into a Contract of Engagement. It was further stated that the complainant, was required to comply with the Contract of Engagement, but he failed to do so.  It was further stated that the total fee payable to M/s WWICS and M/s GSBC was Rs.60,000/- and 10,400 US$, out of which, the complainant had paid only Rs.35,000/-, to M/s. WWICS and 5200 US$ to M/s GSBC.  It was further stated that the complainant, was to deposit an authorized and subscribed capital of Crown 200000 CZK or EURO 8000. It was further stated that the complainant, however, informed the OPs, that he was depositing 1284 US$ and would deposit the balance amount shortly, but the same was not deposited by him.  It was further stated that the documents sent by the Facilitator Company, were handed over to the complainant. The complainant was requested, to get the Power of Attorney (POA) attested from Czech Republic. He, however, failed to get the said documents, attested from the Czech Embassy, New Delhi and, thus, he did not handover the same to the OPs. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the complainant, himself, was at fault for delay in getting the Company registered.  It was further stated that the OPs were ready & willing to pursue the case of the complainant, but since, he himself, was not interested, in settling in Czech Republic, and asked them (OPs) to stop processing his case, and requested for refund, to which he was not entitled.  It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the OPs, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

5.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/OPs.

8.               We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.               The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the complainant and the appellants had entered into a Contract of Engagement and, as such, the parties were governed by the terms and conditions, thereof. He further submitted that the complainant, deposited Rs.35,000/-,  with the OPs and the payment was acknowledged vide receipt dated 25.09.2008. He further submitted that 5200 US$, were received by the OPs, vide receipt dated 20.11.2008. He further submitted that 1284 US$, were received by the OPs, from the complainant, vide receipt dated 13.02.2009. He further submitted that the OPs sent the documents, received from the complainant, to the Facilitator Company on 01.12.2008. He further submitted that the OPs were providing necessary services, for which they were engaged by the complainant, but it was the latter, who did not submit all the documents, nor, it pay the entire amount, agreed to be paid. He further submitted that, even, the appellants had spent money from their own pocket, which was sent to the Facilitator Company. He further submitted that the fault lay on the shoulders of the complainant, as a result whereof, delay occurred in processing his case. He further submitted that, even, the appellants/OPs gave an undertaking, before the District Forum, that they were ready to process the case of the complainant further, but he did not agree to the same. He further submitted that, since, the complainant filed an application to the effect, that he was not interested, in processing his case, the appellants were not deficient, in rendering service, nor they indulged, into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that, as such, the complainant was not entitled to the refund of the amount, but the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in allowing the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, against the appellants/OPs, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

10.            On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the services of the OPs, were engaged by him, for the purpose of processing his case for business Visa to Czech Republic, when they assured that he was fully eligible for immigration and Visa of the aforesaid type. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.35,000/-, was paid by the complainant, to the OPs vide Ann.C-1 & C-2, for immigration/business Visa to Czech Republic.  He further submitted that the entire procedure of processing the business Visa immigration to Czech Republic, was required to take five to six months, as per Annexure C-3, the brochure supplied by the OPs. He further submitted that, as admitted by the OPs, the complainant deposited 5200 US$ vide (Ann.C-4) and 1284 US$ vide Annexure C-5. He further submitted that, even, the first stage of registration of the Company, was not completed by the OPs, by the time, the aforesaid amount was deposited by the complainant, though it was required to get registered the Company, within one month from that date. He further submitted that all the documents, asked for by the OPs, were duly supplied to them and the fault, did not lie on the shoulders of the complainant. He further submitted that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice, as a result whereof, the complainant, was left with no other alternative, than to move an application, for refund of the amount, alongwith compensation. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, deserves to be upheld.

11.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the parties entered into a agreement, as a result whereof, the OPs were to provide immigration/business Visa to the complainant. The appellants/OPs, admitted that they received a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 25.09.2008, as immigration/business Visa fee vide Annexure C-1, 5200 US$ vide receipt dated 20.11.2008, Annexure C-4 and 1284 US $ vide receipt dated 13.02.2009, Annexure C-5. Annexure C-3, brochure is the most important document on the title page whereof, words in bold letters “Work Permit Cum Permanent Residency of CZECH REPUBLIC” were written. It was this document/brochure, which was supplied to the complainant, by the OPs, when he approached them for the purpose of business Visa for Czech Republic. It is evident from the last page of this document, that the procedure of registering a Company, in Czech Republic, was to take one month. The complainant was to receive the invitation letter from Czech Republic, within one month. The preparation of resident permit was to take one month. It is further evident from this document, that processing of business immigration to Czech Europe, was to take five to six months. On page 24 of this document, it was also clearly mentioned, as to which documents were required, to be submitted by the complainant, to the OPs, for the purpose of getting business Visa. Those documents are stated as, scanned copies of passport for traveling abroad for all co-owners of Company, Address in English, select 3 names of new Company and warrants (prepared by Facilitator of CR), to be signed by all co-owners in the presence of CR Consulate at CR Embassy. The structure of professional fee, is also given in this document, at page 22.  A sum of Rs.40,000/-, was to be paid at the time of retaining the services of WWICS and 5200 US$ for GSBC. A sum of Rs.20,000/-, was to be paid to WWICS and a sum of 5200 US$ was to be deposited with GSBC, when the Company was registered and the documents proving the existence of Company were provided to the client(complainant). As stated above, the OPs admitted that they had entered into an agreement, with the complainant, but the true copy of the same was not produced before the District Forum, at the time of leading evidence, for the reasons best known to them, may be some terms and conditions thereof, were against the interest of the OPs. Since, the retaining fee of Rs.35,000/-, was paid on 25.09.2008 vide Annexure C-1, to the OPs, by the complainant, and they issued receipt P2, the procedure of registering the Company in Czech Republic, should have been completed by 25.10.2008, but till the filing of appeal, no Company, had been registered. The OPs, thus, did not adhere to the schedule and commitment, made by them, as per Annexure C-3. The OPs, thus, made a false representation to the complainant, regarding the period, which was required to be taken for the purpose of registration of the Company and processing of his application for immigration for business Visa. The OPs extracted money from him, but did not fulfill the first condition of registration of the Company in Czech Republic, in one month from 25.9.2008. The OPs, thus, were not only deficient, in rending service, but also indulged, into unfair trade practice.

12.            No doubt, the Counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire amount of professional fee and other amounts, committed to be paid by the complainant, were not paid by him, and, therefore, he could not claim the relief of refund. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants/OPs does not appear to be correct. As per page 22 of brochure C-3, the complainant was only required to pay Rs.40,000/-, to the OPs, on account of retaining the services. He had already paid Rs.35,000/-, without any objection and without any demand from them. He was also to pay 5200 US$ to GSBC, which he had paid in full, as demanded by the OPs. The remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- and 5200 US$ to GSBC were to be paid to the OPs after the registration of the Company. As stated above, neither the Company was registered nor the documents were provided to the complainant, regarding the registration of such Company. 1284 US$ vide receipt dated 13.02.2009, Annexure C-5, were paid by the complainant, to the OPs, though he was not liable to pay the same, at that stage. Since the OPs did not adhere to the commitment made by them, of the registration of a Company, which was the first step, in the process, it could not be said, that the complainant did not pay the remaining amount, as he was not bound to pay the same, and, as such, was not entitled to the relief. Thus, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, stood falsified from C-3 itself. This act also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

13.             Now coming to the next question, as to whether, the complete documents were provided by the complainant, to the OPs, for the purpose of processing his case or not, it may be stated here that the main objection of the Counsel for the appellants, was to the effect, that the duly attested Power of Attorney was not supplied, to the OPs, by the complainant, as a result whereof, the same could not be sent to the quarters concerned, resulting into delay in processing his case. This submission of the Counsel for the appellants is belied from the email, at page 22D of the District Forum file. This email was sent by the Manager, Business Immigration (Operations) of the OPs, to the complainant, on 09.04.2009. This document clearly proves that the attested POA and PCC, were sent to the OPs. It was further indicated, in this email, that reminder to futurum had been sent for an update. The complainant was also intimated, that the matter was reported to be under process and intimation of the same was expected soon. There is an email at page 22C, which was sent to the complainant, by the OPs. No mention was made, in this document, that the complainant had not supplied the documents to them, as a result whereof, his case was not processed. The complainant sent an email, at page 22E to the OPs on 09.04.2009. An email, in response, was sent by the OPs, to the complainant, which is at page 22F of the complaint file. In this document, it was not stated by the OPs, that since he(complainant), did not submit the requisite documents, his case could not be properly processed. There is another email at page 22G, sent by the OPs, to the complainant, wherein he was intimated that the Company registration was expected to be completed by the first week of June, 2009. In this document also, he did not ask the complainant, that he had not submitted the aforesaid documents, as a result whereof, his case was not processed further. Had the complete documents, alongwith attested Power of Attorney, not supplied to the OPs, they would have certainly written letters to him or sent emails, demanding the same, but they did not do so. This clearly proves that all the requisite documents, which were necessary for processing the case of the complainant, for business Visa to Czech Republic, had already been supplied, but, since the Company had not been registered at Czech Republic, the case of the complainant, could not be processed. So, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that the requisite documents, which were handedover to the complainant, were not returned by him, after the attestation thereof, is belied from the record. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

14.            The appellants/OPs obtained the aforesaid amount from the complainant, without rendering any service, to him. The entire amount was spent by the complainant, in the hope that he would get business Visa for Czech Republic, for earning his livelihood, but all his hopes were dashed to the ground, when even after the lapse of about one year, the OPs did not even complete the first stage of registration of the Company, which was promised to be completed, within one month from 25.09.2008. False assurances were given by the OPs, to the complainant, that they would get Visa promptly, though they had done nothing, in that regard. Not only this, a false plea was also set up by the OPs, in the grounds of appeal, that the complainant failed to arrange fees, as subscribed capital of Crown 2,00,000/- or Euro 7000-8000, which were necessary for getting his company registered. From page 22 of Annexure C-3, it is clear that the client would deposit Euro 8000, as authorized capital after all documents of new company were attested from Czech Consulate at Czech Republic. The OPs, as stated above, did not provide any document to the complainant, for getting the same attested from Czech Embassy nor did they get the same attested from the said Embassy. Under these circumstances, the question of depositing Euro 8000 by the complainant, with the OPs, did not at all arise. Such a false plea, which was taken by the OPs, in the grounds of appeal, as also, in the written statement, clearly proves their lies. The District Forum, was, thus right in holding that the OPs were liable to pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for causing the complainant mental and physical harassment and Rs.50,000/- for taking up false pleas in their written reply, to dodge this Forum.

15.            No doubt, during the pendency of appeal, a copy of the Contract of Engagement was produced, without moving an application for additional evidence. The documents, which were produced alongwith the appeal and during the pendency thereof, could not be taken into consideration. Had the application for additional evidence, been filed and the same had been allowed, the matter would have been different. Only the documents, which were produced, before the District Forum, could be taken into consideration, for the purpose of deciding the appeal. No reliance, therefore, on the documents, which were produced, alongwith memorandum of appeal or during the pendency thereof, can be relied upon for deciding the appeal. No help, therefore, from these documents, can be taken by the Counsel for the appellants.

16.            No other point was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

17.            The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

18.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

19.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

20.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

September 16, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER