DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.260 of 2016
Date of institution: 10.05.2016 Date of decision : 01.09.2017
1. Gurinderbir Singh son of Shri Jagjit Singh, resident of village Tapiala, P.O. Bhullar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.
2. Rupinder Kaur w/o Gurinderbir Singh son of Shri Jagjit Singh, resident of village Tapiala, P.O. Bhullar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.
……..Complainantss
Versus
Bharti Education & Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., SCF 19 & 20, 2nd Floor, Phase-10, Mohali, Punjab through its Director/Authorised representative.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainants.
Opposite Party ex-parte.
ORDER
By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.
The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainants filed the present complaint pleading that they were misrepresented by the mis-advertisement of the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP in short for the Opposite Party) as it assured for the visa for them to Canada for the administrative services i.e. clerical post. The complainants paid Rs.40,000/- towards processing fee and copy of the receipt dated 31.10.2013 is placed on record as Annexure C-1. The OP assured to arrange work permit visa for the service from Canada. It was assured by the OP that they would process work permit visa from the service Canada, under Arranged Employment Opinion (AEO) i.e. they would arrange employer for them at Canada. In the month of December, 2013, the complainants were asked to execute one agreement with the OP and the complainants were also asked to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for applying for Canada PR. The OP told to process the case under LMO. It has specifically mentioned in the letter that the fee is refundable if the OP don’t provide the LMO letter. The OP also executed an agreement with the complainants. The conditions of the agreement are totally in contravene to the services provided to the complainants and also in contravene to the purpose for which the consideration was received from the complainants. No service as agreed in the agreement has been provided to the complainants by the OP. In year 2014, the OP further received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for LMO contract letter. It is clearly deficiency in service by the OP as the OP till date did not process the case and the LMO contract letter has not been received. The letter dated 27.10.2014 is placed on record as Annexure C-4. The OP again asked the complainants to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards the fee for embassy. The complainants paid the same to the OP. The account statement is placed on record as Annexure C-5. The OP received an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- without providing any services to the complainants. Lastly the complainants prayed to allow the complaint with a direction to the OP:
i) to refund amount of Rs.3,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till realisation.
ii) to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
iii) to pay litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-
and/or
iv) any other relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. After admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP, but it could not be served. Lastly, the OP was served by publication of the notice through newspaper. None appeared on behalf of the OP and, therefore, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant No.1 Ex. CW-1/1; copies of receipt dated 31.10.2013 Ex.C-1; letter dated 03.12.2013 Ex.C-2; agreement dated 03.12.2013 Ex.C-3; letter dated 27.10.2014 Ex.C-4 and account statement dated 17.12.2015 Ex.C-5.
4. The complainants are consumers of the OP as the complainants availed services of the OP for consideration of Rs.3,85,000/-. This Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint because the contract of agreement was executed between the parties at Mohali. It has pecuniary jurisdiction as the relief claimed by the complainants is less than Rs.Twenty lakhs. The complaint is within limitation as the cause of action arose to the complainants after 27.10.2014 when the OP failed to provide promised services and is a continuing one till the OP provides the promises service or refund the amount to the complainants. The complainants have proved the payment of Rs.40,000/- vide Ex.C-1, payment of LMO fee of Rs.1,20,000/- vide Ex.C-2, payment of LMO Contract letter fee of Rs.1,00,000/- vide Ex.C-4 and payment of Rs.1,25,000/- vide Ex.C-5. So it is clear that the complainants paid Rs.3,85,000/- to the OP for providing them service. The complainants have also placed on record ‘contract of engagement for Canada PR Visa’ which is Ex.C-3. In Clause 3 of the contract, the duties of consultants are mentioned as following:
3. Duties of the consultant:
The consultant shall, on the request (s) of Party No.1
a) provide consultancy services to Party No.1 for applying visa selected by party (s).
b) assist the Party No.1 in compilation of documents etc. and supporting information and evidence etc. for applying visa selected by the party (s).
c) handover to the Party No.1 the application/case alongwith supporting documents and evidences
(as submitted by the party (s) for onward submission at the processing visa office.
d) assist the Party No.1 for interview preparation.
e) assist the Party No.1 in assessing the qualifications as required by the embassy etc. for the purpose of accreditation of educational qualification.
5. So the OP is bound to do these duties as the word ‘shall’ is used in the contract which the OP failed to provide to the complainants. It is not only deficiency in service but also an unfair trade practice by the OP.
6. The complainants have proved that they paid Rs.3,85,000/- to the OP for providing service to them which is refundable if the OP don’t provide the complainants LMO letter. The OP remained absent and did not rebut the complaint of the complainants in any manner. The complainants have proved their complaint and, therefore, they are entitled to refund of their amount i.e. Rs.3,85,000/-.
7. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to refund Rs.3,85,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Eighty
Five thousand only) to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts, till the actual date of refund. We also find that complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony due to the negligent act of the OP and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only). The present complaint stands partly allowed.
The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 01.09.2017
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
