Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/434/2023

DEEPAK PATHANIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE DEVELOPER IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES/PARTNERS-BALJINDER S - Opp.Party(s)

VARINDER ARORA

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/434/2023
Date of Institution	:	6.9.2023
Date of Decision	:	3/04 /2024

 

Deepak Pathania aged 38 years son of Sh. Janak Singh Pathania R/o House No. 580/1, Sector 41 A, Chandigarh, 160036.

Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. Future Developer Immigration Consultant, through its Authorized Representatives/Partners-Baljinder Singh S/o Madan Lal and Beant Singh, SCO No.91-92-93, Third Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2. Kanwar Preet Singh, authorized representative of Future Developer Immigration Consultant, SCO No.91-92-93, Third Floor, Sector 34-A. Chandigarh.

... Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Aashish, Advocate proxy for Sh. Varinder Arora, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Barinder Rana, Advocate proxy for Sh. Manoj Pundir, Advocate for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant allured by the fancy advertisement given by the OPs on the internet for securing tourist VISA for Canada approached the office of OPs where he met with one Kanwar Preet Singh who introduced  the complainant with the counsellor  and he conveyed the documents which were required for securing the tourist VISA of the complainant for Canada and also asked the complainant to immediately pay an amount of Rs.11,800/-.  Accordingly the complainant paid the aforesaid amount through GPay  and the copy of screenshot of Gpay and copy of statement of account of complainant  is annexed as Exhibit C-2 and C-3.  On 29.7.2023 the   OPs called the complainant in their office and executed a Retainer Agreement dated 29.7.2023 with the complainant  explaining  the terms and conditions for securing the Canada Tourist VISA for the complainant by the OPs and at that time the OPs had admitted that they had received an amount of Rs.1,61,800/- from the complainant  and the copy of agreement is annexed as Exhibit C-4. Initially during the discussion between the parties the OPs had conveyed that in case they could not secure tourist VISA  for the complainant then the entire  deposited amount will be refunded  to the complainant  but when the agreement dated 29.7.2023 was executed between the parties,   the clause of refund of 50% amount was only inserted and in this manner, the OPs misled the complainant as till date the Ops could not procure the VISA for the complainant nor they have conveyed if it has been granted or rejected. Even the official of the OPs had admitted that the entire amount will be refunded to the complainant but despite of that they have not refunded the deposited amount. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of fact. However, it is not disputed that the complainant has approached the OPs for securing VISA and an amount of Rs.1,61,800/- has been paid by the complainant but denied deficiency of service on their part for not securing VISA for Canada rather the complainant himself has not submitted  documents required for grant of VISA. Moreover, when it has been agreed through the agreement dated 29.7.2023 that the aforesaid amount was paid by the complainant to the OPs as professional fee which was not refundable.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments of complainant.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the OPs being immigration consultant had agreed to secure VISA for the complainant and had received an amount of Rs.1,61,800/- from the complainant being initial deposit made by the complainant as is evident also from copy of receipt Exhibit C-2.  and copy of statement of account Exhibit C-3 and till date the OPs could not secure the VISA to the complainant nor they refunded the amount paid by the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around copy of  Retainer Agreement Annexure C-4 which was admittedly executed between the parties. Perusal of clause 8 and 9  of the agreement is as under:-

“8. Refund policy

The Applicant(s) acknowledge that the granting of a visa or status and the time required for processing this application is at the sole discretion of the government and not the Consultant. Professional Fees which I paid from that is non refundable in case of refusal and Applicant agree on this

9. Abandoning Process or Discontinuing Services Midway

The Applicant(s) understand that incase the Applicant abandons the process or discontinues the process at any step or stage of the processes for any reason including failure to submit documents in reasonable time frame, Applicant(s) will be billed 50% of the total professional fees received till date as per mentioned in payment schedule section 5 and 6 of this retainer.”

 

3.   In the case in hand, it is not the case of the parties that the VISA has been denied to the complainant by the VISA Authorities. As per OPs the  professional fees paid by the complainant to the OPs is not refundable. However, as per clause 9 in case abandoning process of discontinuing service midway  by the applicant, the applicant will be entitled for 50% of total professional fee received till date.
4. Moreover, when nothing has come on record from the OPs side that they could not secure the VISA  due to non submission of document or formalities to be completed by the complainant or the OPs have ever asked the complainant  vide any letter to submit the documents so that VISA could be granted to the complainant, it is clear that the OPs have set up a wrong defence that due to non completion of formalities by the complainant, the VISA could not be procured/granted. 
5. Not only this, even the OPs  have also failed to prove on record  that they have attempted to approach the VISA authority for securing VISA for the complainant, thus, it is safe to hold that there is deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion it stands proved on record that the OPs failed  to make any attempt to apply VISA for the complainant, which is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the OPs and furthermore, they have failed to refund  the paid amount to the complainant till date despite repeated requested made by the complainant, hence, we find merit in the complaint and the same   deserves to be allowed in totality.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹1,61,800/- to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date deposit till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her/him/them;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant/s as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 3/04/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member