BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.74 of 2015

Date of Instt. 02.03.2015

Date of Decision :10.09.2015

Bhavna wife of Anil Jassal R/o House No.20, Aastha Enclave-II, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

CAAN Wings Consultancy Services Limited having its Branch Office at 329, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rahul Pushkarna Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Harsaroop Singh Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that complainant is graduate and was interested in going abroad on work permit, and in this regard complainant approached opposite party who used to send various persons abroad on work permit and other various purposes and they are in this business since many years. Complainant was made aware about the various immigration services offered by the opposite party and complainant was told to deposit Rs.50,000/- for application money and complainant was further assured by the opposite party the said money is being deposited as processing fees for initiating visa application process of the opposite party and in case the opposite party could not get the visa application processed then the said amount shall be refunded to the complainant. Under the assurance given by the opposite party with regard to refund of amount of Rs.50,000/- in case the visa case of the complainant is not processed the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- by cash. Opposite party issued two receipts of Rs.25,000/- each. After deposit Rs.50,000/- complainant was told that her visa case shall be processed in few months and complainant shall be duly intimated about the completion of visa case of the complainant and on this assurance complainant kept on waiting to hear word from the opposite party about the processing of her visa case. When the complainant did not get any response from the opposite party with regard to her visa case, complainant personally visited the office of opposite party about the status of application of the complainant, opposite party kept on lingering on the query of the complainant and did not give any satisfactory response to the complainant, on this complainant got frustrated as the hard earned money of the complainant was misused by the opposite party with their ulterior bad motive for defrauding the people with their hard earned money. When the opposite party failed to arrange visa for the complainant then complainant contacted many a times to refund the whole amount to the complainant however opposite party refused to return the amount and under protest return only Rs.25,000/- in year 2011 to the complainant and retained one receipt of Rs.25,000/- with thumb mark of the complainant to the reason best known to the opposite party and assured the complainant that they will adjust remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- in case complainant again process visa application from the opposite party and said amount of Rs.25,000/- was retained by the opposite party just to misappropriate the amount of the complainant. In May 2014, complainant approached the opposite party to return the amount of Rs.25,000/- however they refused to return the amount to the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to refund Rs.25,000/- to her. She has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, suppression of material facts, locus-standi, limitation etc. On merits it pleaded that the complainant was made aware of the various immigration service offered by the opposite party and after going through the scheme regarding settlement in Canada on point basis the complainant agreed to deposit Rs.50,000/- token money for initiating the process fee and depositing the visa fee with the relevant embassy for process of her case and deposit of visa fee and it was disclosed to the complainant that Rs.25,000/- in non refundable fee because the same is fee for providing services to the complainant for processing her case before the concerned embassy. The same is apparent from the receipt No.7561 dated 30.10.2010. It is wrong that after deposit of Rs.50,000/- the complainant was told that visa case shall be processed within few months. However, it is correct that the complainant was informed that she will be duly intimated about the completion of visa case and in this regard the complainant was issued a letter dated 20.1.2011 and 26.2.2011 to supply the company requisite documents enabling them to pursue their case with the Canadian Embassy but the complainant did not respond to the said letters for reason best known to her and have now concocted a story that they were waiting to hear word from the opposite party about the processing of visa case. It is wrong that the complainant did not get any response from the opposite party with regarding to her visa case. The complainant personally visited the office of opposite party about the status of the application of the complainant. It is wrong that the opposite party kept on lingering on the query of the complainant and did not give any satisfactory response to the complainant. It is wrong that the opposite party failed to arrange the visa for the complainant, it is the complainant who did not fulfill the conditions for assessment of her case on point basis with the relevant embassy, then the opposite party on humanitarian grounds returned Rs.26,000/- vide cheque No.242298 dated 13.4.2011 and retained the balance non refundable amount as per the receipt mentioned above for preparing the case and for completion of other formalities. The story put forth in the complaint is concocted one and the same has been put forth to bring the time barred claim within limitation. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copy of document Ex.C1 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant has produced only one receipt for Rs.25,000/- Ex.C1 on which it is specifically mentioned that amount is non refundable. He further contended that complainant had not deposited Rs.50,000/- vide two separate receipts of Rs.25,000/- each as alleged by her. We have carefully considered the above contentions advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party but the above contention of the complainant is contrary to the pleaded case of the opposite party. In para 8 of the written reply opposite party has pleaded as under:-

"It is wrong that the opposite party failed to arrange the visa for the complainant, it is the complainant who did not fulfill the conditions for assessment of her case on point basis with the relevant embassy, then the opposite party (No.2) on humanitarian grounds returned Rs.26,000/- vide cheque No.242298 dated 13.4.2011 and retained the balance non refundable amount as per the receipt mentioned above for preparing the case and for completion of other formalities."
7. So from these pleadings of the opposite party, it is evident that complainant had deposited Rs.50,000/- as alleged by her and not Rs.25,000/- only as contended by learned counsel for the opposite party. According to the own version of the opposite party, it returned Rs.26,000/- vide cheque dated 13.4.2011 and retained the balance non refundable amount as per receipt mentioned i.e Ex.C1. So it means that the complainant had deposited at least Rs.50,000/- with the opposite party. Counsel for the opposite party contended that the present complaint is time barred as the amount of Rs.26,000/- was returned in the year 2011 and whereas the present complaint has been filed in the year 2015 after the period of limitation of two years. We have carefully considered the above contentions advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party. The opposite party had received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant for processing her case for going abroad on work permit and till the processing of the case or returning of the entire amount, the cause of action is continuous one. Counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant did not fulfill the conditions for assessment of her case on point basis with the relevant embassy. In para 6 of the written reply, the opposite party has further pleaded that complainant was informed that she will be duly intimated about the completion of visa case and in this regard the complainant was issued a letter dated 20.1.2011 and 26.2.2011 to supply the company requisite documents enabling them to pursue her case with the Canadian Embassy but the complainant did not respond to the said letters for reason best known to her. The opposite party has tendered only affidavit Ex.OP/A of Deepali Srivastava and authority letter Ex.OP1 which is in favour of Ms.Deepali Srivastava. It has not produced even a single document to show that it prepared the case of the complainant for sending the same to Canadian Embassy or it wrote any letter as alleged in the written reply asking the complainant to supply any document. So it appears that opposite party did nothing after receiving the amount and never sent the case of the complainant to Canadian Embassy. So it constitute deficiency in service on its part. By merely mentioning that amount is non refundable on the receipt, the opposite party is not entitled to retain the amount particularly when it has failed to prove that it has prepared the case of the complainant and sent the same to the Canadian Embassy or it asked the complainant to supply documents for pursuing her case with Canadian Embassy but it failed to supply the same. So opposite party is liable to refund Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed to refund Rs.25,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the entire awarded amount from the expiry of said period of one month till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.09.2015 Member Member President