Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/129

Simarjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Foreign Horizons - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       129

Date of Institution:  22.09.2014

Date of Decision :    6.04.2015

 

Simarjit Kaur w/o Sh Dharminder Singh s/o Sh Karamjit Singh r/o House No. 30 B, Near Lal Kothi, Govt Colony, Faridkot.                         .....Complainant

Versus

Foreign Horizons through its Authorized signatory, SCO 126-127, Basement Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                               .........Opposite Party(OP)                                                            

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:      Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:     Sh Atul Gupta, ld Counsel for complainant,            

                  Sh Inderpal Singh Bhinder, ld Counsel for OP,

(P Singla, Member)

                                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Foreign Horizons/OP seeking directions to OP to return the amount of Rs 2,95,000/-with interest and also to pay Rs 2,00,000/- as damages alongwith original passport and her testimonials and to pay litigation expenses.

2                                                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that at the instance of OP, complainant entered into an agreement with OP and OP apprised to get visa and permanent immigration to Australia for the complainant through their company and  OP offered to charge Rs 5,00,000/- as fee and on 16.05.2008, complainant paid Rs 25,000/-through her banker and Rs 10,000/-from Centurian Bank Ltd, which were duly transferred in the account of OP on 9.06.2008 and paid Rs 85,000/- in cash to OP vide receipt no. 1259 dt 9.06.2008 and at that time, OP obtained original passport and original certificates of complainant, which are still in the possession of OP and thereafter, on 10.01.2009, complainant withdrew  an amount of Rs 1,00,000/-from her account in State Bank of Patiala and paid in cash to OP and subsequently gave amount of Rs 1,10,000/-in cash to OP on 29.12.2012, but till date OP has not done anything to materialize the immigration of complainant, rather has been receiving the amount by showing day dreams and had been stressing complainant to pay Rs 5,00,000/-in advance before her permanent immigration to Australia and in total  OP has received an amount of Rs 2,95,000/-from the complainant; that complainant also requested OP to release receipts for remaining amount of Rs 2,30,000/-, which complainant did not issue; that OP has indulged himself in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and has been using her amount for his personal use to which OP has no right; that complainant alongwith her husband made many requests to OP to return Rs 2,95,000/-with interest alongwith original passport and testimonials, but to no effect, rather OP abused the complainant due to which she underwent mental torture, agony and pain for which OP is liable to pay an amount of Rs 2,00,000/-as damages; that complainant also sent registered legal notice to OP on 5.07.2014, but inspite of service of legal notice, OP failed to pay her amount; that a few days back, complainant alongwith her husband requested OP, but OP flatly refused to admit the request of complainant and all this amounts to deficiency in service and complainant has prayed to direct OP to return the amount of Rs 2,95,000/-with interest at the rate of 18% and to pay additional amount of Rs 2,00,000/-as damages alongwith her original passport and testimonials besides litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                          Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 26.09.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                      On receipt of notice, OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is hopelessly time barred by the Law of Limitation; that complainant approached OP Office in the month of May-June, 2008 seeking guidance and counselling for filing visa for Australia; that complete plan was explained to complainant and her husband and in lieu of that complainant deposited a sum of Rs 35,000/-by way of two instalments dt 16.05.2008 and 19.05.2008 as processing and filing charges of OP; that complainant visited the office of OP alongwith her husband on 9.06.2008 to pay second instalment of Rs 50,000/- and OP issued receipt for the said amount of Rs 50,000/-and also issued another receipt for Rs 35,000/-, which complainant deposited in the  account of OP; that the visa case of complainant was sent to Australian Authorities for approval, but the same was rejected by the authorities and now, complainant has filed this complaint after a period of 6 years and therefore, complaint is barred by Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act; that complaint is a blatant abuse of process of law and is filed with ulterior motive to defame OP and to extort money from OP; that complainant has very cleverly tried to show all her cash withdrawals of Rs 1,00,000/-on 10.01.2009 and her ATM self cash withdrawal of Rs 1,10,000/-at Faridkot dt 29.12.2012 as money given in cash to OP just to create self evidence and complainant is trying to project a dubious story that over a period of 5 years she had been simply paying money to OP without any question or reason; that complainant has tried to mislead the Forum; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP nor any  unfair policy is adopted by OP. However, on merits, OP has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the averments taken in preliminary objections; that complaint is totally false and baseless and is based on wrong facts and is hopelessly time barred and complainant is trying to mislead the Forum by filing this false and frivolous complaint against OP just to harass the OP with the motive to extract money from OP by misusing the benevolent provisions of law; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case as all the transactions took place in Chandigarh and  receipt dt 9.06.2008 was issued by OP to complainant at its Chandigarh Office and even perusal of receipts determines that all disputes are subject to jurisdiction at Chandigarh; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                                            Parties were given proper opportunity to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Arvind Ashat Ex OP-1 and then, evidence of Ops was closed by the order of this Forum.

7                                        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

 8                             The Ld Counsel for complainant vehemently contended that complainant entered into an agreement with OP for immigration to Australia and on assurance of OP complainant paid Rs 25,000/-, 10,000/- and 50,000/-to OP regarding which OP issued receipt no. 1259 dt 9.06.2008. He further argued that on 10.01.2009, complainant withdrew an amount of Rs 1,00,000/-from her account in State Bank of Patiala and paid in cash to OP and subsequently an amount of Rs 1,10,000/-was given in cash to OP on 29.12.2012 and OP had been stressing the complainant to pay Rs 5,00,000/- more in advance before her permanent immigration to Australia and OP has received total amount of Rs 2,95,000/-from complainant. It is further contended that there is unfair trade practice on the part of OP and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP for which she is entitled for relief sought. She has prayed for accepting the complaint.

9                                Ld Counsel for OP contended that complaint is totally time barred by the Law of Limitation as complainant approached the office of OP in May-June 2008 for seeking guidance and counselling for filing her visa to Australia and complainant has filed this complaint after a long gap of 6 years, which is not as per section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore, being time barred complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that complete plan was explained to complaint and she deposited a sum of Rs 35,000/-in two instalments dt 16.05.2008 and 19.05.2008 as processing fee and filing charges. Ld counsel for OP brought before the Forum that OP issued receipt for Rs 50,000/-to complainant when she visited the office of OP on 9.06.2008 at their office in Chandigarh and OP also issued receipt for Rs 35,000/-deposited by complainant on 16.05.2008 and 19.05.2008.  Ld counsel for OP further stressed that for every transaction, OP issued a proper receipt, but complainant has tried to show all her withdrawals of Rs 1,00,000 dt 10.01.2009 and her ATM self cash withdrawal of Rs 1,10,000/-dt 29.12.2012 as money given to OP in cash in order to create evidence, for which there is no supporting document on record and complaint filed by complainant is false and is filed with ulterior motive to extort money from OP. Ld Counsel for OP has repelled the contention of complainant that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP as visa case of complainant was sent to Australian authorities for approval but the same was rejected by the authorities and therefore, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.

   10                           We have keenly considered the rival contentions made by both the counsel for parties and have perused the record on file very carefully. From the perusal of documents placed on record, it is observed that complainant  approached OP in May-June 2008 for guidance and counselling for filing her visa to Australia and on assurance of OP complainant paid Rs 25,000/-, 10,000/- and 50,000/-to OP regarding which OP issued receipt no. 1259 dt 9.06.2008 Ex C-4 and Ex C-5. It is alleged by complainant that on 10.01.2009, complainant withdrew an amount of Rs 1,00,000/-from her account and paid in cash to OP and also gave an amount of Rs 1,10,000/- in cash to OP on 29.12.2012 and OP had been stressing the complainant to pay Rs 5,00,000/-in advance before her permanent immigration to Australia and OP has received total amount of Rs 2,95,000/-from complainant. However, we do not find any force in the contentions of complainant as complainant has not brought forth any material in support of his contention that she has paid Rs 2,95,000/-to OP. Even no witness is produced to prove this fact. Moreover, there is no rebuttal from the side of complainant in order to prove that amount of Rs 2,95,000/-is deposited by complainant with OP. It does not seem appropriate that complainant paid Rs 2,95,000/-to OP, did not get the receipt for same and remained silent for more than 6 years. Moreover, complainant has filed this complaint after a long gap of 6 years, which is not in consonance as per section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore, being time barred, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is brought before the Forum that OP issued receipt for Rs 50,000/-to complainant when she visited the office of OP on 9.06.2008 at their office in Chandigarh and OP also issued receipt for Rs 35,000/-deposited by complainant on 16.05.2008 and 19.05.2008. For every transaction, OP issued a proper receipt, but there is no receipt for Rs 1,00,000/- dt  10.01.2009 and for Rs 1,10,000/- dt 29.12.2012. No plausible reason is given by complainant regarding this fact, rather it appears that complainant has tried to show all her withdrawals of Rs 1,00,000 dt 10.01.2009 and her ATM self cash withdrawal of Rs 1,10,000/-dt 29.12.2012 as money given to OP in cash in order to create evidence, for which there is no supporting document on record and complaint filed by complainant is time barred. Last receipt was issued by OP on 9.06.2008 i.e receipt no. 1259, it is not reliable that the complainant again paid heavy amount on 29.12.2012 without any receipt from OP. It is not understandable that what was the necessity to give more amount even after four years without any reason, which was without bank transfer. There seems to be no deficiency in service on the part of OP as visa case of complainant was sent to Australian authorities for approval but the same was rejected by the authorities and therefore, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complaint filed by complainant is time barred as  receipt no. 1259 dt 9.06.2008 pertains to June 2008 and she has filed this complaint on 22.09.2014 and there is no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant in between this period.

11                      In the light of above discussion, complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed being time barred. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be supplied free of cost to both the parties. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 6.04.2015                

Member                          Member                    (Parampal Kaur)                     (P Singla)