DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                    Consumer Complaint No.119 of 2016

                                               Date of institution:  01.03.2016                                                Date of decision   :  11.07.2017

Ravinder Pal Singh son of Satpal Singh resident of House No.HIG 1303, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Bathinda.

                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Bharti Education and Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. SCF 19-20, Second Floor, Phase-x, Mohali through its authorised representative.

2.     Navdeep Singh Brar, Director of Bharti Education and Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., r/o H.No.330, Sector 49-A, Advocate Society, Chandigarh.

3.     Kaim Deen Khan, Director of Bharti Education and Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., r/o village Dhanpuri P.O. Allowai, Patiala.

                                                                …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member         

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                None for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant Ravinder Pal Singh has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

                The complainant approached the OPs for consultancy for getting PR in Canada. Consultation fee of Rs.40,000/- was paid by the complainant to the OPs vide receipt dated 19.11.2013. Thereafter an agreement regarding liabilities of both the parties was entered into between the parties on 13.02.2014.  After the agreement, the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.1,14,600/- towards LMO fee which was paid by the complainant vide receipt dated 15.02.2014.  An amount of Rs.1,09,000/- demanded by the OPs  on the pretext of arranging LMO Contract Letter was also paid by the complainant vide receipt dated 11.11.2014. After some time on demand of the OPs, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,23,631/- to the OPs towards Embassy fee vide receipt dated 19.12.2014. On the asking of the OPs, the complainant submitted his as well as his wife’s all original documents with the OPs on 18.12.2014. Thereafter, there was no communication from the OPs for quite long time.  The complainant visited the OPs and asked to give his file number so that he may confirm from the Canada Embassy regarding status of his case. The OPs did not give him the file number.  Then the complainant vide his request dated 10.09.2015 asked the OPs to refund his amount. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 18.12.2015 to the OPs but no reply was given by the OPs.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.3,87,248/- alongwith interest @ 18%; to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment and   Rs.50,000/- as litigation and other expenses.

3.             In response to the notice sent to the OPs by this Forum, their counsel appeared and filed memo of appearance on 03.05.2016 and sought time to file reply by 23.05.2016. On 23.05.2016 reply by the OPs not filed and time was granted to the OPs for filing reply on 06.06.2016. The reply was again not filed by the OPs on 06.06.2016 and on failure of the OPs to file the reply within the period as stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. decided on 04.12.2015, the complainant was ordered to be proceeded further.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CW-1/1; copies of receipt Ex.C-1; agreement Ex.C-2; receipts Ex.C-3 and C-4; bank statement Ex.C-5; receipts Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7; letter Ex.C-8 and legal notice Ex.C-9. None appeared on behalf of the OPs to tender any evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on the assurance given by the OPs, the complainant has paid them a total amount of Rs.3,87,248/- on various dates for getting his PR in Canada. However, after lapse of time, neither the PR has been arranged by the OPs nor his amount has been refunded. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service and thus the complaint be allowed and the complainant be got refunded his deposited amount alongwith suitable interest and compensation.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the counsel for the complainant. The complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C-1 and C-3 to 6 to show that he has made payment to the OPs for his PR to Canada.  Contract of engagement Ex.C-2 was executed between the parties for PR of the complainant to Canada wherein the duties of the OPs as well as of the complainant have been mentioned. As per the duties of the OPs mentioned in    Ex.C-2, the OPs were to provide consultancy service for applying visa by the complainant.  The OPs were also to assist the complainant for interview; in assessing the qualifications as required by the embassy etc. etc.  However, inspite of payment of the demanded amounts, the OPs did not inform the complainant his status of PR case. The Ops even did not inform the complainant his file number in order to enable the complainant to enquire from the Canadian Embassy status of his case.  Ultimately the complainant requested for refund of the amount and the OPs did not make refund to complainant.  Even during the proceedings of this complaint, after putting initial appearance through counsel, none appeared on behalf of the OPs.  Thus the pleas of the complainant and his evidence have remained unrebutted and unchallenged.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is allowed with the direction to the OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.3,87,248/-  alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of different amounts till actual payment.  The OPs should also pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                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: 11.07.2017    

                                  (A.P.S.Rajput)                President

 (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member