DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:101 of 2011] Date of Institution : 25.02.2011 Date of Decision :13.10.2011 --------------------------------------- Ms. Seena Jose wife of Sh. Jose Ignatious resident of House No.1553, Durga Colony, Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, Distt. Panchkula (Haryana). ---Complainant. V E R S U S Canam Consultants Limited, S.C.O. No.83-84, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. OP already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Jose Ignatious Puthettu has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 through his wife Ms. Seena Jose praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To refund an amount of Rs.54,000/- paid to the OP for immigration to Canada. ii) To pay compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he hired the service of OP for immigration to Canada. He paid a total sum of Rs.54,000/- to the OP in two installments vide Receipts dated 07.03.2005 and 18.07.2005 (Annexures C-1 and C-2). OP told him that the whole process would take almost four years. The complainant received a letter dated 07.07.2005 (Annexure C-3) from Government of Canada (High Commission of Canada) confirming the receipt of his application for permanent residence. According to the complainant, he received a letter from the OP asking for the number of documents required by the Embassy. It has been averred that the processing of the case of the complainant exceeded the assured period of four years. Otherwise also, according to the complainant, he was no more interested for immigration. So, he requested the OP for cancellation and for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with it vide letters dated 30.12.2009 and 27.01.2010 (Annexures C-5 and C-6). He also wrote to the Canadian High Commission for cancellation of his application and for refund of the immigration processing fee and other payments. According to the complainant, he was refunded the immigration processing/Landing fee/Visitor/visa Fees/Over payment by the Canadian High Commission through OP. However, no refund was made to him by the OP of the amount deposited with it by the complainant. According to the complainant, non refund of the fee of Rs.54,000/- by the OP amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP was duly served through Process Server but none appeared on behalf of the OP to contest the case. Therefore, the OP was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.04.2011. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record. 5. Admittedly, the complainant applied for immigration to Canada through OP and paid it a consolidated amount of Rs.54,000/- vide Receipts dated 07.03.2005 and 18.07.2005 (Annexures C-1 and C-2). Admittedly, the complainant was also informed that it would take almost three years to complete the whole process by the Government of Canada in dealing with the case of the complainant. Admittedly the application of the complainant was duly received by the High Commission of Canada (Government of Canada) on 15.06.2005, as is evident from letter dated 07.07.2005 (Annexure C-3). It is thus proved that the OP sent the case of the complainant to the Canadian High Commission well in time. Thus, no delay can be attributed on the part of OP in processing the immigration case of the complainant. Once the case for immigration was sent by the OP to the Canadian High Commission, then it is the sole discretion of the High Commission of Canada to settle the case and no fault can be attributed on the part of OP on this count. 6. It is also proved from letter dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure C-9) that the complainant himself withdrew the application for permanent immigration to Canada. It is also proved on record vide letters dated 26.04.2010 and 14.04.2010 (Annexures C-10 & C-11) that he was given refund of Immigration Processing/Landing Fees/Visitor/Visa Fees/Over Payment by the Government of Canada. Now at this stage, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to seek refund of the amount deposited with the OP for hiring its service for immigration to Canada. The OP has already done the job for which its services were hired. In our considered view, there is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant. 7. In these circumstances, the present complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 13th October 2011. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.101 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 10.10.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. Announced. 13.10.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
