BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.569/2020
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
S.Nagendra Prasad Babu,
S/o K.Sudarsan Reddy,
Aged about 42 years,
No.462/13, Aneppa Layout,
Kalkere, Horamavu Post,
Countrywide Immigration Private Limited,
206/40/41, H.Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110 019,
Rep by Authorized Person.……OPPOSITE PARTY-1
Countrywide Immigration Private Limited,
1201, 12th Floor, Devika Tower 6,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110 019,
Rep by Authorized Person.……OPPOSITE PARTY-2
(Opposite parties Rep by Sri.Sri.Karthik Narayana, Adv)
*****
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI. RAJU K.S, MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.50,000/- with 18% interest p.a. and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service together with Rs.50,000/- for shock and mental sufferings by the complainant.
2. It is the case of the complainant that one Pooja Singhal claimed to be client relationship Manager of opposite party, herein after called as CRM, called the complainant by phone on 20.06.2018 and said that they are found complainant’s profile in Naukiri.com and it was suitable for “Federal Skilled Worker Program” and permanent Resident Visa by stating they are best Canada Immigration Consultant providing good service, transparency in the visa application process with 100% success rate and made the complainant opt for their service.
3. The client relationship manager of opposite party company asked the complainant to pay Rs.3,540/- for Technical Assessment whether the complainant was eligible or not and also asked the complainant to fill Technical Assessment Form through their website “https://countrywidevisas.com and to share all soft copies of educational certificates, passport with filled form and amount. As per say of the client relationship Manager the complainant transferred the said amount with filled form on 21.06.2018.
4. After the Technical Assessment CRM had sent an email to the complainant with attached soft copy of the technical assessment invoice and report stating that the complainant passed and eligible for applying for Canada PR visa, the CRM had spoken with complainant on 04.07.2018 and sent an email to do the sign up payment with payment details mentioning that Rs.90,000/- + 18% GST i.e., equal to Rs.1,06,200/- INR which includes documentation fee, processing fee, consultancy fee, visa filling fee and legal assistance charges.
5. Thereafter, the opposite party sent an email to complainant and stated his file has been processed successfully and placed for documentation. The complainant on 11.07.2018 made partial payment of Rs.50,000/- and sent the payment receipt soft copy to start the process. The CRM had sent soft copy of two different invoices, one stating Documentation fee, Processing fee and Consultancy fee non-refundable and other. Thereafter, the opposite party had sent an agreement through courier and urged to sign the agreement and send it back. After going through the agreement, the complainant become shocked and upset as the said agreement was only favourable to the opposite party and there were no details mentioned with regard to the principal place of registered business of opposite party, application number, client ID alternative contact phone number and such other important things.
6. The complainant had made quires about all these facts then the CRM of opposite party replied that if the complainant had made quires unnecessarily it is difficult to full fill her responsibilities as CRM and “opposite party address can’t be mentioned in the agreement, the format is a legal document which cannot be changed”. After repeated discussions with opposite party, the opposite party CRM on 03.08.2018 told over phone that they will mentioning the address in the last page of the agreement and asked to send back the agreement. At that time, the complainant had decided not to proceed with opposite party service due to there is no transparency and fraudulent act. Hence, he requested for full refund of amount paid to the opposite party.
7. After several requests, the CRM of opposite party informed that the complainant is eligible for refund of only Rs.6,372/-. Same was not accepted by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant had sent legal notice dt.27.09.2019 to the opposite party seeking for refund of Rs.50,000/-. The opposite party neither paid the refund amount nor replied. The complainant again sent an email dt.28.12.2018 to the opposite party and sought for refund of amount.
8. Thereafter, one Sophia claimed to be National Branch Head of the opposite party stated that they will ready to modify the agreement and provided client ID No.CWNPOT2963 with denial of full refund amount. Thereafter several requests of the complainant towards full refund amount not heeded by the opposite party, hence the complainant approached this Hon’ble Commission with this complaint.
9. The opposite party appeared through the counsel and denied the allegations of the complainant by stating that the complainant is misconceived and based on false and misleading assertions. With regard to the payment made by the complainant, they have raised two invoices bearing No.CIPIL/SI/2018-19/03026 and No.CIPIL/SI/2018-19/03027 dt.11.07.2018. In the tax invoices, it is clearly mentioned the payments made are not refundable and specifically IGST 18% is non-refundable and same is paid to government. Both the tax invoices states that they are subject to Delhi jurisdiction and this Hon’ble Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and same may be dismissed as not maintainable.
10. The complainant began to avail services from the opposite party on 20.06.2018 and paid Rs.50,000/- towards sign up for Canada PR Visa along with IGST 18% (non-refundable) and consultancy fee, documentation fee, processing fee with IGST 18%. Both the invoices are dt.11.07.2018 and the complaint has to be filed within 28.08.2020, same is not been filed within 28.08.2020. Hence, the complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint filed by the complainant is untenable, false, frivolous and baseless.
11. The opposite party is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and is an Immigration Consultant in Delhi since 2015. The complainant filed the Technical Assessment Form through the opposite party’s website and furnished soft copies of his educational certificate, passport copy with Rs.3,540/-. The opposite party provided technical assessment of complainant and declared him eligible for Canada PR Visa, and CRM of opposite party had sent an email seeking for payment of Rs.90,000/- with 18% GST i.e., total for Rs.1,06,200/- towards Sign Up for Canada PR Visa consultancy fee, documentation fee, processing fee, visa filling fee, legal assistance charges etc. The complainant paid total sum of Rs.50,000/- on 11.07.2018 same was received by opposite party raising two tax invoices, subsequently a service legal agreement was sent to the complainant through courier. Unfortunately, the complainant would not signed the legal agreement and raised unnecessary quires. The opposite party even ready to comply the modifications in the legal agreement suggested by the complainant, the complainant abruptly decided not to avail service of the opposite party and seeking for full refund amount. The opposite party categorically and specifically said in the tax invoices the amount paid by the complainant is not refundable. The opposite party is already begin with service of the complainant in obtaining the Canada PR Visa and accommodated the complainant application by various procedures towards obtaining the visa and such other things. The complainant suddenly changes his mind and abruptly withdrawn from the service of opposite party even the opposite party’s staff provided service with regard to immigration experts to increase the chances of positive income and chances of obtaining the Canada PR Visa. Due to non-co-operation of the complainant and sudden changes in complainant’s mind not to move ahead, in spite of best efforts of the opposite party the complainant willingly unsatisfied and not to avail the service of the opposite party. Hence, the complainant not gets any refund from the opposite party as stated above.
12. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant is examined as PW1 by filing his affidavit and got marked EX.P1 to P9 documents. The opposite party authorized person Mr.Rajeev Tripati has examined as RW1 and got marked EX.R1 to R7 documents. Both parties have filed written arguments and heard the oral arguments.
13. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether the act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.50,000/- as prayed in the complaint ?
iii) What order ?
14. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In affirmative
Point No.2 : Partly in affirmative
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
15. POINT NO.1 & 2:-It is admitted fact of the opposite party that the opposite party had approached the complainant on 20.06.2018 when they have found complainant profile in Naukiri.com and it is suitable for “Federal Skilled Worker Program” – Permanent Resident Visa (Canada PR Visa). Further it was admitted fact that the complainant also interested in the proposal of opposite party and he paid Rs.3,540/- on 21.06.2018 for technical assessment with his soft copies of educational certificates, passport and such other relevant documents. After technical assessment the opposite party CRM one Mrs.Pooja Singal had sent an email by stating complainant had passed and eligible for applying for Canada PR Visa. Mr.Pooja Singal further said in email for availing service of opposite party, to do the Sign Up agreement by making payment of Rs.1,06,200/- it includes Rs.90,000/- and 18% GST for documentation fee, processing fee, consultancy fee, visa filling fee, legal assistance charges etc.
16. The complainant agreed with the discussion made with opposite party CRM on 11.07.2018 and made an partial payment of Rs.50,000/-. The opposite party had raised two invoices bearing No.CIPIL/SI/2018-19/03026 and No.CIPIL/SI/2018-19/03027 dt.11.07.2018 for Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite party sent an agreement and same had received by the complainant. After go through the agreement the complainant finds number of discrepancies and lacuna’s in the agreement. The complainant presumes it is an unilateral agreement made in favour of the opposite party. Even opposite party did not mention their address in the agreement. For that the complainant enquired with the opposite party CRM by number of emails. The opposite party CRM failed in convincing the complainant with regard to the doubts arose towards agreement.
17. The complainant feels some foul smell and some phishing activity in the act of the opposite party. For that he had made several quires with the opposite party but the opposite party miserably failed to satisfy the complainant. Hence, the complainant refused to continue towards avail service of opposite party. Hence, the complainant told to the opposite party he will not interested move with the opposite party with regard to avail service of Canada PR visa and asked to refund entire Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant.
18. In turn the opposite party categorically denied to refund amount and stated that the amount paid by the complainant is Non-Refundable one and some of the amount was collected as GST and same is paid to the Government. Further the opposite party stated their service was started from day one when the complainant contacted the opposite party for immigration consultancy with regard to Canada PR visa. EX.P4 and P7 and R4 & R5 are one and same, both are tax invoices raised with regard to the payment of Rs.50,000/- made by the complainant.
19. In both the exhibits R4 & R5 the opposite party categorically stated amount is “NOT REFUNDABLE”. Anyhow after series of discussions and quires by emails, the opposite party agreed to refund Rs.6,372/- to the complainant. But the complainant wanted full refund of amount of Rs.50,000/-.
20. It is the specific case of the opposite party that the complaint is misconceived and based on false and misleading assertions. After several quires with opposite party the complainant agreed to avail service of the opposite party with regard to Canada PR Visa and made payment of Rs.50,000/- for availing the service. After payment made by the complainant, the opposite party moved towards documentation, processing of complainant file for Canada PR Visa. For that the complainant has to sign to one Sign Up agreement and same was sent to the complainant. But the complainant abruptly decided not to avail the service of opposite party after got the Sign Up agreement. Thereafter, the complainant raised unnecessary quires with opposite party and refused to Sign Up agreement even the opposite party agreed to make changes as wished by the complainant. On perusal of EX.P9 & EX.R6 “Service Legal Agreement”, it is clear that the service of the opposite party towards Canada PR Visa starts from the day of signing to the service legal agreement. Even the consultation charges refunded upto 60% in case of Visa rejected by concerned country. Here the specific case of the complainant is not opted to go with the service of opposite party by refusing to sign in the Sign Up agreement. Hence, the complainant not avail any service from the opposite party. Whatever the service rendered by the opposite party was only technical assessment and it was in initial stage. For that the complainant had paid Rs.3,540/- on 21.06.2018. The complainant does not seek refund of Rs.3,540/- and it is paid whatever the service availed by the complainant from opposite party. From the discussions made above and from scrutinization of email correspondence between the complainant and opposite party, we came to conclusion that the opposite party not rendered any service as narrated in the Sign Up agreement. Hence, the act of opposite party was an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sect.2(47) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the opposite party falsely made to believe the opposite party with regard to the service. The complainant duly paid whatever the service availed from the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party has to refund the amount collected from the complainant. Accordingly, point No.1 & 2 are answer in affirmative.
21. POINT No.3:- So far considering the point no.3 the complainant had sought refund of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party. But the opposite party stated that they have paid Rs.1,148/- and Rs.6,480/- in all total Rs.7,628/-paid to the government as GST @ 18% of invoice amount. The opposite party not produced any document to shown Rs.7,628/- has paid to the Government. However, we believe that the opposite party had paid same to the Government. Hence, the opposite party is liable to refund Rs.42,372/- to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite party i.e., from 11.07.2018 to till realization.
22. Further for the mental agony suffered by the complainant, the opposite party has to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part.
The opposite party is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.42,372/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 11.07.2018 till realization.
Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost suffered by the complainant.
In case, the opposite party fails to pay the above said amount of Rs.15,000/- within 30 days, the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 29th day of July, 2022)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA, K)
MEMBER MEMBERPRESIDENT
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainantss side:
Sri.S.Nagendra Prasad Babu, the complainant has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the complainants side:
- Certificate u/s 65b of Indian Evidence Act.
- Copy of email communication.
- Copy of fund transfer.
- Copy of tax invoice dt.21.06.2018.
- Copy of technical assessment report dt.25.06.2018.
- Copy of payment summary dt.11.07.2018.
- Copy of tax invoice dt.11.07.2018.
- Copy of mark sheet of master of computer applications.
- Copy of agreement dt.12.07.2018.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Sri.Rajeev Tripathi, Authorized Signatory of opposite party-company has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:
1. Certificate U/s 65b of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Copy of the Authorization letter dt.13.11.2020.
3. Copy of the Tax invoices.
4. Copy of the service legal agreement.
5. Copy of the emails.
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA, K)
-
