Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/17/2015

Atul Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director,World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	17 OF 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	9/01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	04.09.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Atul Sharma S/o Sh. Yashwinder Kumar Sharma R/o 169, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Director World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. Head Office: A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali (Punjab), India.

 

2]  Regional Manager, World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. SCO 2415-16, Sector
22-C, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant in person        

 

For Opposite Parties    :     Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

            The facts, in brief, are that the complainant approached the OP No.2 in the month of May, 2013 for Permanent Residency under Federal Skill Trade Program, CANADA which was a jot offer based program, Explanation and fee structure explained by WWICs. It has been stated that the complainant fulfilled all the requirement of the program. The OPs were required to arrange job for the complainant within 9 months from the date of contract under clause 1(e) & 3 of the contract (Annexure C-3). The complainant had already made the timely payments as per contract of the WWICs to the tune of Rs.4,64,163.  It has been alleged that the OPs failed to arrange/offer job to the complainant as per contract even after lapse of 18 months.  Whereas the as per contract the OPs were required to arrange job within a period of 9 months w.e.f. 10.5.2013. The complainant approached the OPs a number of time regarding the status of his case but to no avail. It has further been stated that the OPs in reply to legal notice dated 22.11.2014 offered refund of about Rs.4.00 lacs instead of 4,64,163 with interest  vide email dated 25.11.2014. It has further been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed left with no alternative the instant complaint was filed.

 

2]       Opposite Parties in their joint reply stated that the complainant entered into three separate contract of engagements under Federal Skilled Trades Program (Job offer stream). It has been stated that the complainant executed two contract with the OPs  and the third contract was executed by the complainant with M/s GSBC, Dubai and a total professional fee of rs.1,50,000/- and rs.30,000/- was paid by the complainant to the OPs in accordance with Contract of Engagement(R-1&R-2). The complainant paid an amount of Rs.US$4300 to M/s GSBC, Dubai as per 3^rd Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-3). It has further been stated that as per clause 9(iii) of the Agreement Annexure R-1 the complainant had already been refunded Rs.1,12,500/- vide cheque dated 17.2.2015 and Rs.15,000/- vide cheque dated 17.2.2015 as per Contract of Engagement Annexure R-2.  Even the entire amount of Rs.US $4300 has also been refunded to the complainant as per Clause 9(iii) of the Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-3). The said cheques were duly received by the complainant as is evident from Annexure R-4.  It has further submitted that the complainant was provided proper service by the OPs and there was no deficiency on their part. It has further been stated that the complainant retained the services of OPs with respect to preparation and submission of documents to Global Strategic Business Consultancy LLC (GSBC)for securing job offer in an eligible skilled Trade occupation from an employer in Canada, required for client to get positive labour market opinion  from Human Resources and Skills, Development Canada so that the client could apply for permanent residents status in Canada under the Federal Skilled trades Class and the Ops has already performed their duties. The OPs alongwith M/s GSBC, Dubai were pursuing the case of the complainant  but the OPs or M/s GSBc do not have  any control  with regard to the delay in processing  the case of the complainant. It has further been stated that since the OPs and M/s GSBC could not arrange job accordingly as per clause of the contract refund aforesaid was made to the complainant. It has further been stated that the complainant even did not array M/s GSBC, Dubai as a necessary party to the complaint thus the allegations contained in the complaint cannot be looked into. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person and ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties for the reason that he had paid an total amount of Rs.4,64,163/- towards the different charges of the Opposite Parties for hiring their services for permanent residency under Federal Skill Trade Programme for Canada, in the month of May, 2013.  However, the complainant is aggrieved as no fruitful result was achieved even after a passage of nearly two years, as Opposite Parties had failed to arrange the said permanent residency status for the complainant, as promised by them vide agreements Ann.-3 & 4.  The complainant has placed on record the proof of payments made to the Opposite Parties vide Ann.-5, 6 & 7. The complainant claims that because of the false promises of the Opposite Parties, his precious two years were wasted.  The complainant even served a legal notice upon the OPs in the month of Nov., 2014 and requested the refund of the amount, which was paid by him to the Opposite Parties while seeking their consultancy services.    

 

7]       It is an admitted case of the complainant that the Opposite Parties offered to return Rs.1,12,500/- + Rs.15,000/- + 4300 US Dollars as refund, which according to their e-mail dated 25.11.2014, was approved by the management of the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties had even requested the complainant to sign the consent letter, so as to complete the refund proceedings initiated at the request of the complainant. 

 

8]       It is abundantly clear from the communication dated 25.11.2014 that the Opposite Parties were not adamant in retaining the money of the complainant, even though the commitments made by the Opposite Parties to the complainant with regard to his Federal Skill Trade Programme for Canada for the purpose of permanent residency in Canada could not be achieved.  In view of the e-mail dated 25.11.2014, we may take a lenient view against the Opposite Parties in their failure to meet the promises services sought by the complainant. 

 

9]       The Opposite Parties, who had come present after due service of the notice of the complaint, had reiterated their desire to refund the amount paid by the complainant to them and even paid a total of Rs.4,64,182/-, therefore, the amount paid by the complainant stood returned, though the complainant had pressed for an interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with compensation and litigation expenses against the OPs, but the conduct of the Opposite Parties in returning the principal amount to the complainant without contesting the present complaint too deserves to be looked into sympathetically.  We also understand that an amount of Rs.4,64,163/- remained with the OPs and the OPs enjoyed this amount to their advantage and the complainant has curtained lost some money on this amount, for the duration of the time it remained with the OPs.  Therefore, it would be just and fair if a simple rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum is given to the complainant on the amount of Rs.4,64,163/-, which is nearly equivalent to the savings bank rate offered by any bank. 

 

10]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

        

a]  To pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.4,64,163/- from the date of respective deposits/receipts till it is paid;

 

b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

C]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of  Rs.7,000/- and as well as the interest amount, as mentioned in sub-para a] above. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

04.09.2015          

                                                                             Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.17 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 4th day of September, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member