KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 819/2015
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.12.2018
(Against the order in C.C. 355/2013 of CDRF, Ernakulam)
PRESENT :
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Head Office, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali, Punjab.
- Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Regd. Office 1/31/A, 3rd Floor, Near Raja Garden Flyover, Above Yamaha Showroom, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
- The Manager/Managing Director or Authorized Officer, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Regd. Office, Sana Towers, Jose Junction, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi.
(By Adv. Vettoor S. Prakash)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Bindu Mohandas alias Bindu, Manickan, 12/492, Lions School Road, Palakkad-678 001.
JUDGMENT
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH: MEMBER
Opposite parties in C.C. No. 355/2013 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, in short the district forum, has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which they were directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 16.08.2011, the date of receipt of the amount till realization, to the complainant.
2. The gist of the complaint is as follows: Complainant who is a diploma holder in pharmacy approached the 3rd opposite party for doing documentation and for doing immigration clearance and by way of three occasions she had paid an amount of Rs. 80,000/- to the 3rd opposite party and he received the amount for and on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 14,400/- to appear for IELTS, in order to enable herself to get visa and immigration clearance to the Republic of Canada. The complainant has to spend amounts for getting several documents. The 3rd opposite party never provided the details of the accounts, showing item wise details of the fee pattern and of the professional charges levied by them. The 3rd opposite party never disclosed the response from the Embassy of Canada. The opposite parties are bound to furnish the entire details to the complainant. The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. The complainant demanded back Rs. 80,000/- but it was not given back. Hence the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to which the 3rd opposite party sent a reply notice stating that they are ready to pay Rs. 40,000/-. Hence complainant has filed the complaint to give direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 80,000/-, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards incidental expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed version raising the following contentions. As per clause 11 of the Contract of Engagement dated 31.07.2010 the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- only out of the amount of Rs. 80,000/- paid by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party. In December 2011 the matter of the complainant was reviewed by Visa Officer and the same was returned due to capping of the category of pharmacists and on 19.01.2012 a reconsideration application was sent to the Canadian High Commission but there was no response. Another appeal for reconsideration was filed and it was also not considered by the Canadian High Commission. Subsequently the complainant became disinterested and she demanded the amount back. Opposite parties were ready and willing to give back Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to realize any amount other than Rs. 50,000/-, sought for in the complaint. Complaint is to be dismissed.
3. The Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A24 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties and Exts. D1 to D5 were marked.
4. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum, the opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. The complainant had claimed Rs. 80,000/- from the opposite parties. The district forum found that as per clause 11(ii) of the Contract of Engagement the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 50,000/- only and that was agreed by PW1 also during cross examination. The district forum found that the complainant is entitled to get only Rs. 50,000/- after deducting the retainer fee of Rs. 30,000/- from the total amount of Rs. 80,000/-. Complainant has not challenged that order.
7. The district forum directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 16.08.2011, the date of receipt of the amount till realization. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the only grievance of the appellants is regarding the direction passed by the district forum to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the respondent/complainant as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which was found by the district forum. It is true that in paragraph 8 of the Order of the district forum it has observed that the complainant has not established any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is to be noted that complainant has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- towards incidental expenses incurred by her and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation from the opposite parties and those claims were not allowed by the district forum. The amounts claimed towards incidental expenses incurred by the complainant were not allowed for the reasons that those amounts were not paid to the opposite parties and most of the amounts spent by the complainant were towards statutory payments. But it has come out in evidence that the complainant has spent some amounts for obtaining several documents. Considering all these facts, it is just and proper to give direction to the opposite parties to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from 16.08.2011, the date of receipt of the amount from the complainant. We find that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the order passed by the district forum regarding payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the order was passed by the district forum on 27.07.2015 but on 31.03.2014 the appellants had deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- before the district forum and the said amount was deposited in the Axis Bank by the forum as F.D on 31.03.2014. So the respondent/complainant is entitled to claim interest for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- only up to that date. The respondent/complainant will get interest for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the appellants before the district forum and it was deposited in the bank as F.D. In these circumstance, the Order passed by the district forum regarding the payment of interest for the amount of Rs. 50,000 /- is to be modified by limiting for the period from 16.08.2011 till 31.03.2014 (31 months) which will come to Rs. 15,500/-.
8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed and the Order passed by the district forum regarding payment of interest for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is modified as follows: Opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay interest @ 12% for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from 16.08.2011 to 31.03.2014 (which will come to Rs. 15,500/-).
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Respondent/complainant can obtain release of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest accrued to that amount deposited by the appellants before the district forum, on filing proper application.
The respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs. 15,500/- from the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant, at the time of filing of the appeal, to be adjusted to the amount ordered as interest. Refund the balance amount to the appellants, on proper application.
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
