Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/286/2015

S. Sher Mohammed khann - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canam Consultants Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Abdul

16 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.286 of 2015

(Against the Order, dated 18.05.2010, in C.C. No.184 of 2009,

on the file of  the DCDRF, Chennai-North)

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on: 16.06.2022

 

1.S.Sher Mohammed Khan,

S/o.Late M.K.Sardar Ali Khan,

No.15/7, Balaji Nagar,

1^st Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.

 

2. Fahmida Khan,

W/o.S.Sher Mohammed Khan,

No.15/7, Balaji Nagar,

1^st Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.                 … Appellants/Complainants

 

vs.

 

1.CANAM CONSULTANTS LTD.,

rep. by N.S.Prem Ganesh,

‘White House’ D Block,

No.111, 1^st Avenue,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai-102.

 

2. CANAM CONSULTANTS LTD.,

rep. by its Manager,     

S C O 83-84, Sector 17-D,

Chandigarh 160 017.           … Respondents/Opp. Parties.

 

             For Appellants         :  M/s.Abdul Mubeen

             For Respondents      :  M/s. T.M. Naidu & Co.

 

This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 19.05.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainants and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

    

             The appellants herein challenge the impugned order, dated 18.05.2010, passed by the DCDRF, Chennai – North, in C.C. No.184 of 2009, whereby, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint filed by them, holding that they miserably failed to establish negligence & service deficiency on the part of the OPs/respondents herein and that they are not entitled to any compensation as sought for in the Complaint.

 

             2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the course of this order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             In brief, the case of the complainants, as given in the Complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows:-

             The 1^st OP is the authorized agent of the 2^nd OP.  On 03.12.2003, the complainants, who are husband & wife, had approached the 1^st OP to get a Canadian Permanent Resident Visa for them and their two minor children.  After initial process, they received File No.B045981880 from the Canadian High Commission and, as per the advice-cum-instructions given by the 1^st OP, the complainants executed the ‘Retainer Agreement’, dated 11.11.2003.  On 15.12.2003, a sum of Rs.16,500/- each was paid towards Visa Processing apart from Rs.10,000/- towards Service Charges, as demanded by the 1^st OP.  As years passed by, the complainants quite often enquired the fate of the applications, for which, the 1^st OP assured that the same would get processed soon.  In the meanwhile, the complainant left his family at Chennai and had gone to Dubai for  livelihood and stayed there for 5 years.  Even though he was in Dubai, he was making enquiries with the 1^st OP and used to send his father-in-law and wife in person to enquire with the OPs about the progress in the process.  While so, the 2^nd OP was addressed by the Canadian High Commission that certain documents were to be submitted by the complainants on or before 12.09.2008, however, such information was never conveyed to the complainants and it clearly amounts to deficiency in service.   Both the OPs received the information in time from the Canadian Embassy, but, they failed to timely pass it on, enabling the complainants to submit the required documents within the stipulated time.  Due to such failure on the part of the OPs, ultimately, the visa applications were rejected on the ground of delay in submitting the documents.  In spite of paying huge sum towards service charges, embassy fees, etc. the OPs failed to provide proper service, as a result of which, the complainants suffered the visa rejection.  Hence, they filed the Complaint, seeking the District Forum to direct the OPs to return the money paid to them and further to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the family, besides Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges.

 

       3.  The OPs opposed the Complaint by filing a written version, wherein, among other things, it is stated thus:-

             It is true that the Retainer Agreement, dated 11.11.2003, was signed between the 2^nd OP and the complainants and the papers were duly sent to the Canadian High Commission and File No.B045981880 was received on 09.01.2004 and not on 09.01.2003, as stated in the Complaint.  The 2^nd OP received the IRPA Requirement Letter from the Canadian High Commission on 14.06.2008 by Mail and subsequent thereto, on 16.06.2008 itself, a letter along with the IRPA Requirement Letter, which was received from the Canadian High Commission, was sent through courier to the complainants, but, it was received back undelivered. Thereupon, once again, the 2^nd OP twice sent reminders on 22.07.2008 and 18.09.2008 through Courier and Post, calling upon the complainants to submit the required documents immediately, but, they failed to comply therewith.  Admittedly, they submitted the required documents with the 2^nd OP only on 08.12.2008, that is, after the deadline and, by that time, the applications were rejected on 17.11.2008.  The complainants were required to furnish the updated documents within the time frame of 90 days, however, the said requirement was not complied with by them.  For their own fault, the complainants cannot impute any service deficiency against the OPs and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

             4. In order to substantiate the claim and counter-claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits and, while the complainant marked 12 documents as Exs.A1 to A12, 3 documents were filed by the OPs as Exs.B1 to B3.  The District Forum, by the impugned order, dated 18.05.2010, dismissed the complaint by holding that the complainants failed to establish the negligence and service deficiency on the part of the OPs and hence, the present Appeal by the complainants.

 

             5. Learned counsel for the complainants mainly submits that  the OPs, having received the information from the Canadian High Commission requiring the complainants to furnish updated documents connected to visa process, ought to have immediately intimated the same to the complainants for timely compliance on their part.  According to him, inasmuch as the Email details and Mobile particulars of the complainants were already provided to the Agency, they could have otherwise informed the complainants through the said mode for due and timely compliance.  It is apparent that the OPs did not take proper care in conveying the information received from the High Commission and as such, service deficiency is glaringly apparent on their part. This is a case where the OPs, after collecting necessary charges towards processing fee and service, failed to play any pro-active role in getting the visa to the clients/complainants. That being so, the District Forum simply relied upon the return covers filed by the other side and, without any logic, discarded the case of the complainants in its entirety.  Hence, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and the relief sought for by the complainants may have to be granted by this Commission, he pleaded.

 

             6. We are not inclined to accept the above submissions of the learned counsel for the complainants for the prime reason that when the OPs established that they made attempts to reach out the complainants, that would suffice to come to the conclusion that they have taken all reasonable steps to perform their service as per the Retainer Agreement/Ex.A1, dated 11.11.2003.   The factual aspects of the case would go to show that the complainants did not properly follow up the matter with the OPs. It is stated that, during the pendency of the visa applications, the complainant had gone to Dubai for livelihood and stayed there for 5 years.  Except stating that he was making inquiries and that his father-in-law and wife were also in touch with the OPs, it is not clearly stated in the complaint as to  on which date, they last contacted the OP and as to when they came to know about the rejection of the application. More importantly, no proper reply is forthcoming from the complainants as to their non-availability in the residential address at the relevant time, when the first communication, dated 16.06.2008, of the 2^nd OP, sent along with the IRPA letter of the Canadian High Commission, and also the subsequent reminders dated 22.07.2008 and 18.09.2008, were to be returned undelivered.  When it is not the case of the complainant that he was making enquiries through emails, now, he cannot turn around and allege any service deficiency for not sending emails to him, particularly when the OPs duly performed their duty by sending the first communication along with the papers of the High Commission and after the same was returned undelivered by the courier service, they further followed it up by issuing the two reminders at good intervals through courier and post. If really the complainants were sincerely following up the process, they would have informed/updated the OPs about their location whenever they were away from the residential address. It seems, that was never done by the complainants.   Since the complainants invited the visa rejection because of their own lapses as mentioned above, now, they cannot allege any negligence or service deficiency on the part of the OPs.  In fact, the District Forum has appreciated all relevant factors and rightly answered the issues framed for consideration. As such, we find no valid reason or ground for interference with the impugned order.

                         

                   7. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 18.05.2010, passed by the DCDRF, Chennai-North, in C.C. No.184 of 2009.

 

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT