MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 14.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1091 of 2009.

2.            Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had approached the OP i.e. Canam Consultants Ltd. for applying immigration to Canada as a Permanent Resident (General Skills) for which an agreement was signed on 10.10.2003 and it was settled that any requirement/information by the immigration regarding any deficiency in the documents shall be informed to the complainant through the company and the required fees of Rs.20,000/- for initiating the immigration process was deposited to the company vide receipt number 3143 dated 18.10.2003 and another payment of Rs.15,000/- was deposited on 2.1.2004 vide receipt number 3204. It was submitted that all the required documents and information as per performa given by them were provided to the company by the complainant in December, 2003. On the basis of information, the OP prepared and filed the required papers for immigration on 18.1.2004 vide receipt number 1109699 dated 15.12.2003. The OP prepared a file for the complainant and sent it to the immigration office on 18.1.2004. It was submitted that when the file reached the immigration office, it checked the file and sent e-mail to OP to provide the various documents i.e. updated IMM0008 Schedules 1 and 3, proof of experience, proof of education, relative in Canada, proof of language skills, if your spouse is to accompany you to Canada, proof of your spouses education, police authorities for you and all accompanying family members, travel history forms for you and accompanying family members and copies of passports for all accompanying family members. It was further submitted by the complainant that OP for the reasons best known to them, did not consult the complainant nor informed about to provide any type of evidence or documents asked by immigration office for processing of immigration formalities which were to be submitted within 90 days. The immigration office waited for 90 days to get the information and for non receipt of any information, the High Commission of Canada refused the immigration to the complainant vide letter dated 18.3.2009. The OP did not inform the complainant regarding refusal of immigration to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant had been regularly visited their office for any information required by the immigration office. The complainant visited their office on 10.7.2009 and came to know about the refusal despite the fact that OP received the refusal letter on 20.3.2009. It was submitted that due to the dereliction of the OP, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.14,00,000/- as had the OP persuaded the case of immigration of the complainant properly, the complainant would have been migrated to Canada in September/October, 2008 and as per the qualification of the complainant, he would have got a job of minimum $1000 (Canadian) per week till date, he would have earned around $36000 (Canadian) amounting to Rs.14,40,000/- which caused due to the dereliction of the OP company. Due to dereliction of the OP, the future of the complainant has been darkened as the OP assured to the complainant for the visa and the complainant has not applied any other jobs and was waiting for immigration. The complainant several times requested to the OP to make the payment fully described in the head note of petition but they flatly refused to make the payment. The above said act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         The OP filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case and submitted that the agreement was entered into between the complainant and the OP on 13.10.2003.  It was mandated on the part of the complainant to furnish the requisite updated documents as required by the Canadian High Commission within 45 days from the receipt of their letter dated 14.6.2008 in order to enable the OP to pursue further the case of the complainant. However inspite of so many reminder to the complainant, the complainant had not submitted the documents thus acted in sheer violation of clause 12 of Retainer Agreement. It was submitted that instead of putting the case of the complainant under the category voluntary abandonment, the OP kept the file of the complainant alive for sufficient long time in order to safeguard the interest of the complainant. The OP received the IRPA requirement letter from the Canadian High Commission on 14.6.2008 through e-mail, the OP immediately on 16.6.2008 sent a letter to the complainant to submit the required documents, however the letter was received back undelivered with remarks “locked”. The OP also informed the complainant telephonically to submit the required documents immediately and the OP again on 23.6.2008 sent a letter to the complainant through courier and UPC, the complainant however visited the office of the OP on 30.6.23008 and shows his inability to submit the required documents and also shows his inability to produce the required Police Verification Certificates and proof of funds and also said that now he is not interested in going to Canada and wanted his money back. However again a reminder was sent to the complainant on 12.8.2008 to submit the required documents but the complainant failed to do so. The OP again received a reminder from Canadian High Commission on 25.11.2008 to submit the required documents and as such the OP again on 26.11.2008 sent a final reminder to the complainant under UPC but the complainant never responded and never submitted the required documents. Meanwhile on 18.3.2009 a rejection letter was received by the OP on the ground that the required documents were not sent to the Canadian High Commission. Thus it reveals that complainant himself was at fault for not providing the required documents with the OP. Rest of the allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.         The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant as the OP was not negligent or deficient in their services as per the agreement entered into between the parties.

6.            Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.  Sh.Pritam Singh Baath, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant and Sh.Balwinder Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent.

7.         In appeal, it has been contended by the complainant that the learned District Forum has wrongly held that the complainant has concealed regarding the refunded amount of Rs.13,000/- whereas in the complaint it has been mentioned in the head note that Rs.13,000/- has already been refunded through cheque and the complainant at the time of receiving the above said cheque of Rs.13,000/- of refunded amount signed the voucher and protest and thereby mentioned “Partial Payment has been received.” So, there is no concealment regarding the refunded amount of Rs.13,000/-. The learned District Forum has wrongly mentioned that they have informed the complainant through telephone whereas no telephone number and no report from the concerned telephone office has been attached with the written statement. The learned District Forum has committed a legal error in holding that the OP was not negligent or deficient in their service as per the agreement entered into between the parties and wrongly and erroneously held that the complaint is meritless. It is also wrongly held that the OP had intimated the complainant vide Annexure R-4 dated 16.6.2008. The documents attached with the written statement as Annexure R-4 to Annexure R-10 have been prepared later by the OP by mentioning previous dates after filing the complaint by the complainant and the documents Annexure R-4 to R-10 itself speaks that these are forged and fabricated documents. It is submitted by the appellant that no correct address is mentioned on the letter and how it will establish that the courier messenger had found the residence of Navtej Singh when no house number and no sector has been given in Annexure R-8. In Annexure R-9 the date of letter is given 26.11.2008 while it was dispatched on 25.11.2008 as per the stamp upon the UPC and how it is possible that a letter can be dispatched one day earlier then that of its writing. Thus all the documents from Annexure R-4 to R-10 are forged and fabricated. The OP has wrongly presumed that the complainant showed his inability to produce the Police Verification Certificate and proof of funds and also wrongly presumed that the complainant has shown his inability to submit the required documents, while the OP did not inform the complainant so submit any type of documents. This clearly shows that the complainant visited their premises after OP received the required documents mail from Canadian High Commission. 

8.         We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9.         It was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the learned District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had concealed the fact that the OP had refunded an amount of Rs.13,000/- whereas, the learned District Forum has overlooked this fact that the complainant had mentioned about the refund of Rs.13,000/- in the head note of the complaint. It was submitted that the complainant had received this amount through cheque and the complainant had received this cheque under protest. It was submitted that all the documents Annexure R-4 to R-10 placed on record by the OP before the learned District Forum, i.e. letters and acknowledgement receipt etc.  regarding intimation for the submission of the documents to the Canadian High Commission are forged and fabricated. The learned District Forum has wrongly held that the complainant showed his inability to produce the police verification certificate and proof of funds. It was further submitted that the complainant due to the fault of the OP i.e. by not informing the complainant to submit these documents the complainant could not be able to furnish these documents in time to the Canadian High Commission and, therefore, the Canadian High Commission has rejected his claim form for the grant of visa to Canada.

10.       The learned counsel for the OP contended that while dismissing the complaint the learned District Forum has rightly observed that all the allegations leveled by the complainant are false and fabricated and contended that the OP has duly informed the complainant not only once but many a times. It is the complainant who inspite of receiving reminders from the OP did not handover the required documents to the OP and for the non-furnishing of the required documents, the claim form of the complainant was rejected by the Canadian High Commission. It was further submitted that it has been very well established on file that the complainant was duly intimated through courier as well as through UPC . The order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper and needs no interference and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

11.       From the perusal of the record, it appears that the documents placed on record by the OP are not forged and fabricated as alleged by the appellant in his appeal. Specially, we have perused Annexure R-9 letter dated 26.11.2008 and Annexure R-10, receipt of UPC minutely. It appears that the date of stamp by the post office is of dated 26.11.2008 and not 25.11.2008. Though the word 6 is not very clear due to the missing of the ink but after seeing it with the magnifying glass, it has been observed by us that the form of the word comes out to be like a 6 only. Thus the contention of the complainant is not believable that the documents filed before the learned District Forum by the OP are forged and fabricated. The facts and circumstances shows that the OP has sufficiently communicated the complainant regarding the submission of the documents with the Canadian High Commission for the grant of visa. Thus all these documents placed on record shows that the complainant is taking a false and baseless ground of being not intimated by the OP, rather it is the complainant who failed to submit the same well in time and thus for this reason, the visa could not be granted to the complainant. The learned District Forum has rightly concluded that the complainant had been duly communicated. However the learned District Forum has erred in observing and giving these remarks that the complainant had deliberately concealed the facts that the OP has already refunded a sum of Rs.13,000/- to the complainant, whereas in complaint it has been mentioned in the head note that the OP had refunded a sum of Rs.13,000/- through cheque. Therefore the remarks given by the District Forum regarding the concealment of the fact regarding the refund of an amount of Rs.13,000/- is not correct.

13.       In this view of the matter, we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as per the agreement entered between the parties and the appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed as devoid of merit. The remarks given by the learned District Forum in para no. 11 of the impugned order are expunged and rest of the order is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

14.       Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                           

6^th December, 2010.