Punjab

Sangrur

CC/390/2019

Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fruitful Efforts Immigration Consultancy Services - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amar Singh

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No.390

 Instituted on:   26.07.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     09.09.2022

 

Surinder Singh Legha aged about 45 years son of S. Nirmal Singh, resident of H.No.155, Jai Jawan Colony, Patiala. 

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Fruitful Efforts Immigration Consultancy Services, Head Office at Bhawanigarh near Old Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh through its M.D.

             ….Opposite party 

For complainant         : Shri Amar Singh, Adv.              

For the OP                : Shri Mohd. Izhar, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.        

 

1.             The complainant has filed this complaint alleging  that the complainant approached the OP for arranging immigration to USA Multiple Tourist Visa (B2) on 21.4.2018 and 22.4.2018, who advised the complainant to get the agreement executed with the company and thereafter his case will be processed. Accordingly, agreement was made with the OP and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 25.4.2018. Further case of complainant is that he was asked that Rs.6 Lacs would be paid later on to another company for getting the visa.  Further case of complainant is that after completing all the formalities the complainant was told that his name would be included in a group of 10 persons and would be sent to USA within a month or so, but the OPs could not arrange a group of ten persons, therefore, the case of complainant was not processed.   The OP failed to act in accordance with agreement and as such the complainant requested for refund of the amount. The OP gave a cheque bearing number 063075 dated 26.2.2019 for Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which was presented on 28.2.2019, but the dealing hand of the bank told the complainant that there is a balance of Rs.19800/- only in the account, as such the payment of Rs.20,000/- was not made to the complainant.  Though the complainant requested the OP a number of times to pay the amount, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply taking legal objections that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands, that the complainant has suppressed material facts and that the complaint be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached the OP for immigration to USA multiple tourist visa on 21.4.2018 and 22.4.2018 and executed agreement and receipt of payment of Rs.20,000/- is also admitted. It is stated that the amount received for processing the visa is not refundable as the visa application was rejected due to non submission  of documents by the complainant. However, issuance of cheque to the complainant for Rs.20,000/- is admitted but stated that the same was given as security for processing of visa of the complainant.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The parties produced their respective evidence and closed thereafter.

4.             We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant approached the OP for providing immigration to USA Multiple Tourist Visa (B2) on 21.4.2018 and 22.4.2018 and execution of agreement is also admitted.  It is also admitted that the complainant paid an  amount of Rs.20,000/- to the OP for processing the visa, but the OP failed to process the visa and as such refunded the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant vide cheque Ex.C-3  but due to insufficient funds the cheque could not be cleared from the bank of OP. Though the stand of the OP is that the cheque given to the complainant was a security cheque, but no such evidence has been led by the OP on record nor any evidence to support its contention in the reply has been produced. We may mention that the right to produce the evidence by the OP was closed by order of this Commission on 1.8.2022 as despite taking so many opportunities the OPs did not produce any evidence.   In the circumstances of the case, we find it to be a fit case, where the OP is liable to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.20,000/-.        

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque i.e. 28.02.2019 till realization. Further, the opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order be complied with within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                                Pronounced.

 

                                September 9, 2022.