Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/328/2015

Gaurav Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganga Immigration & Education Services(P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

02 Sep 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	328 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	23.06.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	02.09.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Gaurav Sharma s/o Late Sh.Chaman Lal Sharma, H.No.150, Near Jain Mandir, Kharar, District Mohali.

 

            Complainant

Versus

 

Ganga Immigration & Education Services (P) Ltd., SCO 13-14-15, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Mr.Rajan Verma

 

2^nd Address:-

    H.No.3002, Second Floor, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.

   

 Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant.

           Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for the OP.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant availed the services of the OP for getting permanent immigration to Canada and paid Rs.10,000/- on 21.5.2011 as consultancy fees and Rs.69,200/- as advance assessment fee on 23.5.2011 (Ann.C-1). Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,71,800/- to OP and a Retainer Agreement was also signed by the complainant (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  The complainant, as asked for by the OP, further deposited an amount of Rs.30,250/- towards the payment of $550/- in the name of Receiver General for Canada (Ann.C-4). It is averred that the complainant in total deposited an amount of Rs.3,80,500/- with the Opposite Party and submitted all documents required for the process of his case and waited for long.  However, later on, the OP showed its inability to process the case of the complainant and refunded Rs.1.00 lakh in cash on 20.12.2013 and also gave one cheque of Rs.2,55,000/- dated 20.12.2013 (Ann.C-5).  However, the amount of $550 was not paid to the complainant.  It is also averred that the OP asked the complainant to keep the cheque with him and take cash from it after returning the original cheque after few days (Ann.C-5).  Then the complainant time and again visited the OP for collecting the cash against the cheque amount, but no payment was made and when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured being out of date (Ann.C-6). It is pleaded that thereafter the complainant approached the OP numerous times, but the OP kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and did not make the payment.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2]       The OP has filed the reply and took objection that the complainant had already moved a complaint against the OP upon which FIR No.384, dated 15.8.2014 under Section 420 of IPC & Section 24 of Immigration Act has been lodged at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh   (Ann.R-1). Pleaded further that the matter is already pending in the Hon’ble Court of Sh.K.S.Maju, JMIC, Chandigarh for its adjudication.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant prepared the draft of $550/- in the name of Receiver General of Canada and that Rs.1.00 lakh has been paid to the complainant.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations of the complaint, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The present matter is settled to the extent that the complainant being interested in settling permanently in Canada, approached the OP for getting their assistance for the purpose of immigration and hired their services on 21.5.2011 by paying Rs.10,000/- as consultation fee.  There is no denial to the effect that the complainant also paid Rs.69,200/- as advance assessment fee on 23.5.2011. Further, it is proved that a Retainer Agreement was signed by the complainant whereby the complainant was required to pay Rs.2,71,800/-, which was duly paid vide cheque No.463243, dated 27.1.2012 and was duly encashed on 30.1.2012 by the OP.  Further, the record is evident of the fact that a draft amounting to 550$ was got prepared by the OP in the name of Receiver General for Canada, for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,250/-.

 

7]       It is well proved on record that the services availed by the complainant were not rendered by the OP and for its failure to process the case of the complainant, the OP refunded an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh in cash to the complainant, which is also admitted in Para No.6 of the reply of the OP ‘on merits’.  Further, the fact is also proved that the OP issued a cheque of Rs.2,55,000/- which was returned it being  out-dated, thus it remained unincashed. The complainant’s allegation is that despite his strenuous efforts, the OP did not make the payment.  It is further evident that the OP has also not refunded the amount of Rs.30,250/- paid to the Opposite Party in order to get the draft prepared for 550$ in the name of Receiver General for Canada. 

 

8]       The OP in its defence pleaded that the present compliant is not maintainable in this Forum for the fact that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant are already pending under Section 420 IPC & under Section 24 of Immigration Act.  It is further claimed that since the complainant has not disclosed about the said fact, so he is guilty of concealment of material facts.  Further, it is claimed that as the matter is already pending before the Hon’ble Court of Sh.K.S.Maju, JMIC, Chandigarh, for its adjudication, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. 

 

9]       The pleas raised by the OP are not maintainable in the light of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (amended upto date), which stipulates as under:-

“3.     Act not in derogation of any other law.—The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

 

10]      In view of the above, it is clear that present complaint is well maintainable before the Forum qua deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party as alleged by the complainant. 

 

11]      The admitted refund of Rs.1.00 lakh by the Opposite Party is sufficient to hold that the Opposite Party failed to render the services as agreed to, for a sufficient period of time.  By its act of non-refund of the balance amount paid by the complainant, the Opposite Party not only rendered deficiency in service but also showed its indulgence into unfair practice. It has already been discussed in the earlier paragraphs that the allegations of the complainant are thoroughly proved by way of an evidence on record.  Thus, the Opposite Party is under obligation & is liable to refund the amount so procured from the complainant on account of providing services for immigration to Canada, which it admittedly failed.

 

12]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service as well unfair practice, on the part of the OP is proved. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OP and the OP is directed as under:-

[a] To refund an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- + Rs.30,250/- (i.e. Total Rs.2,85,250/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its respective receipts till realization;

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant;

[c] To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, as at sub-para [a] & [b] above, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization, apart from paying the litigation expenses.

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

Announced

2^nd September, 2016                                                                         Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER