Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/151/2019

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) - Opp.Party(s)

Akashdeep Sethi Adv.

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	151/2019
Date of Institution	:	20.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.12.2023

 

                     

            

 

1]  Rajesh Kumar aged 55 years s/o Sh.Jairam

2]  Sahil Kumar aged 27 years s/o Sh.Rajesh Kumar.

Both residents of VPO Ugala, District Ambala, Haryana.

                 ...  Complainants

 

Versus

1]  Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Limited), SCO No. 126-127 (Basement), Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Sh.Arvind Ashat.

 

2]  Tanisha Ashat, Director of Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Limited) w/o Sh.Arvind Ashat r/o House No.F-202, KLV Signature Towers, Sector 66, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA,	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Ankit Kumar, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Akashdeep Sethi, Counsel for the complainant Sh.Varinder Arora, Counsel for OP No.1 Sh.Anuj Ahluwalia, Counsel for OP No.2.

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       By this common order, we propose to dispose off Eight (08) connected consumer complaints i.e. present consumer complaint and seven other consumer Complaints, detailed below, having common questions of law & facts:-

(i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)	(v)	(vi) 1	(vii)
Sr. No.	C.C. No.	Complainant’s Name	Vs.	OPs.	Amount deposited and Date	Received Amount
	CC/149/2019	Surinder Kaur	Vs	Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) & Anr.	21,500/- Dt.10.12.2016 2,00,000/- Dt.14.12.2016 30,000/- Dt.18.01.2017 2,00,000/- Dt.18.03.2017 Rs.4,51,500/- (Annex.C-1 to C-4)	NIL
	CC/150/2019	Sajjan Kumar	Vs	Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) & Anr.	28,000/- Dt.05.03.2017 2,00,000/- Dt.07.03.2017 2,46,000/- Dt.08.03.2017 95,000/- Dt.15.03.2017 Rs.5,69,000/-  (Annex.C-1 & C-2 (colly.)	1,50,000/-
	CC/151/2019	Rajesh Kumar	Vs	Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) & Anr.	24,950/- Dt.31.12.2016 2000/-  Dt.29.12.2016 4,36,000/- Dt.04.01.2017 72,000/-  Dt.20.02.2017 30,000/- Dt.19.01.2017 3500/- Dt.24.02.2017 Rs.5,68,450/- (Annex.C-1 to C-4) 1,00,000/-  (Cash)	2,00,000/-
	CC/152/2019	Sukhwinder Singh	Vs	Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) & Anr.	28,000/- Dt.22.12.2015 2,000/- Dt.21.12.2015 4,10,000/- Dt.24.12.2015 55,000/- Dt.27.01.2016 70,000/- Dt.20.07.2016 Rs.5.65 lacs. (Annex.C-1 to  C-3 (colly.)	1,00,000/-
	CC/153/2019	Dildar Singh	Vs	Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) & Anr.	1000/- Dt. 2.9.2015, 14,000/- Dt. 03.09.2015, 15000/- Dt. 04.09.2015, 4,10,000/-Dt. 07.09.2015, 54,000/- Dt. 16.09.2015, 1,00,000/- Dt. 31.9.2016 Rs.5.94 lacs (Ann.C-1 to C-6)	1,00,000/-
	CC/154/2019	Davinder Singh	Vs	Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) & Anr.	28,000/- Dt. 01.08.2016 2,00,000/-Dt. 04.08.2016, 2,46,000/-Dt. 05.08.2016, 60,000/- Dt. 08.08.2016, 50,000/- Dt. 12.8.2016, 71,800/- Dt. 18.10.2016 80,000/- on 15.12.2016 Rs.7,35,800/- (Ann.C-1 to C-5) Rs.60,000/- (Cash)	1,00,000/-
	CC/191/2019	Gurmeet Singh	Vs	Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) & Anr.	2,000/- Dt. 27.6.2016 25,000/- Dt. 29.6.2016 4,47,000/- Dt. 29.6.2016 62,000/- Dt. 20.7.2016 74,000/- Dt. 21.10.2016 Rs.6.10 lacs (Ann.C-1 & C-2 Colly.)	NIL
	CC/192/2019	Kawaljit Kaur	Vs	Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Ltd) & Anr.	2000/- Dt. 13.2.2017, 26,000/- Dt. 14.2.2017, 2,00,000/- Dt. 16.2.2017, 2,46,000/-  Dt. 16.2.2017 54,000/- Dt. 21.2.2017, 1,08,000/- Dt. 09.03.2017 Rs.6.36 lacs (Ann.C-1 to C-3 Colly.)	NIL

2]       The facts are gathered from C.C.No.151/2019 – Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Foreign Horizons (Overseas Consultant Pvt. Limited) & Anr.’

 

3]       The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, pleading therein that in the first week of December 2016, the OPs advertised for providing visa and Permanent Residency of Australia to Nurses etc without IELTS examination. On 29.12.2017, the OPs assured the Complainants that they will get Complainant No.2 enrolled in OET (Occupational English Test) Course in Einstine College of Melbourne Australia in the April/May session of 2017 and after completion of the course he will get 2-3 years of Work Permit in Australia and thereafter he will become eligible for Permanent Residency of Australia and will ultimately become Permanent Resident of Australia. The OPs told the complainants that apart from other expenses course fee will be Rs.4,36,000/- and to win the trust of complainants, OP No.1 specifically told that upon payment of course fee, they will be given the security cheque of the amount equivalent to course fee.  Further, the OPs demanded Rs 27,000/- as process fee which the Complainant No.2 gave Rs.2000/-in cash on 29th December 2016 and Rs.24,950/-in cash on 31st December 2016 against receipts (Annexure C-1(Colly). Thereafter the Complainant No.1 paid the course fee of Rs. 4,36,000 through NEFT to the bank account of OPs. Besides this, the Complainant No.1 made NEFT transfer of Rs.30,000/- on 19th January 2017 towards embassy fee and Rs.72,000/- towards health insurance of complainant No.2 on 20th February 2017 to the bank account of OPs. The Complainant No.2 also medically examined himself on 24th February 2017 by incurring Rs. 3,500/- as directed by the OPs. Besides this, the complainants also paid Rs.1,00,000/- in Cash as Legal Fee of Advocate to the OPs for applying Work Permit after completion of the study course. In all, the complainants alleged to have paid a sum of Rs.6,64,950/- to the OPs. Later on, the complainants through various newspapers came to know that a F.I.R had been registered against the OPs and their office staff for cheating. On the requests of the complainants, the OPs have returned back Rs.1,00,000/- on 4th October 2017 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on first week of February 2019 but now refused to return the remaining amount. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants have filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund the remaining amount of Rs.4,67,950/-, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

 

4]       After service of notice upon the OPs, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version stating that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainants have already settled the matter and have received the full and final settlement amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, as at the time of issuance of receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.10.2017, the entire case was settled as it is the case of the complainants according to their own documents that the total amount has been received to the tune of Rs.4,36,000/- and out of the said amount Rs.2,00,000/- has already been received which was settlement amount. But the said fact has been concealed by the complainants while filing the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has further been stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainants have taken two coercive measures as earlier a criminal complaint has been preferred and on the basis of the same FIR was registered on 31.03.2017, even otherwise since from the date of said occurrence, the present complaint is time barred. The principle of estoppels also applies upon the complainants, as they have already availed a remedy against the opposite parties. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5]       In its separate written version, the OP No.2 has stated that she become a director of the OP-1 company only to fulfill the formalities of forming of the Company. It has further been stated that due to wrong and illegal acts of OP No.1, she has been made to suffer and she is under custody since 26.04.2018. It has further stated that she had never deal in the working of the OP No.1-Working and she is a housewife. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on her part, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

6]       The complainant filed replication to the written reply of OP No.2 controverting her stand and reiterating their own.

 

7]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

8]       We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

 

9]       The question to be decided is whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in not providing promised services despite receipt of huge amount nor refunding the amount to the complainant(s) or not ?

 

10]      To find out answer to this issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-

 

         It is established from the record that the complainant No.1 had availed the services of the OPs for immigration of complainant No.2 to Australia for the said Course as well as to arrange the work permit after completion of the course for permanent resident. It is also established that the OPs did not render the promised service despite receipt of huge amount from the complainants vide Ann.C-1 to C-3 besides expenses for medical examination.

 

11]      It is observed that the complainants admittedly have received Rs.2 lacs from the OPs but the balance amount was not refunded despite repeated requests.  It is also observed that the OPs were duty bound to render the service as promised or to refund the received amount. The assertions of the complainants are also supported by their duly sworn affidavit. Therefore, it is held that the OPs have not only misrepresented the complainants but also failed to render the promised service and thus adopted unfair trade practice.

 

12]      Similar facts have been pleaded in other connected complaints and similar evidence has been led in them.  Therefore, in all these cases, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is proved.

         So far as the cash amount alleged to have paid to OPs, in some of the consumer complaints, the same cannot be considered in absence of documentary evidence/proof.

 

13]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, all consumer complaints deserves to be partly allowed and the same are accordingly Partly Allowed against OPs. The OPs are directed to refund the deposited amounts as depicted in Sr.No.(vi) of the above table to the respective complainant(s) along with interest @9% per annum from the respective dates of its deposit/receipt by the OPs till the date of its actual realization to the complainant(s), less the amount already received, if any, as depicted in Sr.No.(vii) of the above table.                This order be complied with by the OPs within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

 

14]      Pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12.12.2023                                                               

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

SD/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER