Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/252/2015

Sarita Kinger - Complainant(s)

Versus

Genesis Immigration and Education - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Sharma

28 Dec 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/252/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	23/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	28/12/2015

 

 

 

          

    

1.     Sarita Kinger w/o Tarun Kinger, Permanent resident of house No.1184, Sector 67, Tehsil and District Mohali, Pb. 160062.

 

2.     Tarun Kinger S/o Devi Dayal Kinger, Permanent resident of house No.1184, Sector 67, Tehsil and District Mohali, PB-160062.

 

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1. Genesis Immigration and Education, S.C.O. 21, Level-2 Sector 17-E, Chandigarh 160017, through its Managing Director.

 

2. Deepak Joshi, R/o H. No. 235, Sector 11/A, Chandigarh, U.T., (Director of Genesis Immigration and Education).

 

3. Vikas Mahajan as an appointed employee of Genesis Immigration and Education, S.C.O. 21, Level-2, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh 160017.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate
For Opposite Party	:	Smt. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Parties retained the complainant No.2 first time on 27^th January, 2014 for Australia immigration and received the application processing fee of Rs.12,500/- excluding IELTS test coaching charges of Rs.6500/- by wrongfully assessing his profile. The Opposite Parties had applied for VETASSES before filing the immigration to Australia for the complainants and got positive result from VETASSES for complainant No.2 on dated 12.6.2014. The Opposite Parties had charged Rs.48,300/- as a fee of VETASSES body from the complainants. After that when the Opposite Parties were not successful to proceed the application of complainant No.2 for the Australian immigration, then the Opposite Parties assessed complainant No.2’s wife profile as principal complainant under skilled worker category for Canada and started to proceed their application under skilled worker category.  The complainant No.1 had spent Rs.17,300/- on her credential authentication for Canadian PR, which was the first step to apply for Canadian PR. Complainant No.1 spent a sum of Rs.7000/- for IELTS test coaching excluding application processing fee of Rs.12,500/-. Complainant No.1 who was the main complainant for CANADA PR met the eligibility factors needed for Canadian PR. It is stated that both the complainants had taken the IELTS test and deposited their IELTS test fee @Rs.9800/- per candidate.  It is further stated that as per requirement of the Opposite Parties the complainants submitted all the documents. After satisfying with the documents submitted the Opposite Parties processed and prepared application under skilled worker category for Canada and sent it through DTDC courier on 24.9.2014 and the same was delivered at Canada on 1.10.2014.  The Opposite Parties assured the complainant that within 60-90 days from filing the application they would get the unique application number.  It has been alleged that after waiting for 90 days the complainants received their incomplete file alongwith rejection letter from Canada. Despite number of enquiries the Opposite Parties did not reveal the exact status of their application. On 1.4.2015 the Opposite Parties intimated the complainants that their application had been returned by the Canadian embassy due to non-attachment of birth certificate of the spouse. It has been alleged that the though the   complainants provided birth certificate yet the Opposite Parties did not attach the birth certificate of complainant No.2 along with other documents. The Opposite Parties intentionally concealed the fact of rejection of their application in the month of December, 2014. Had they informed the same in time, the complainants could have refilled the application after attaching the required document.  The complainants spent an amount of Rs.6,48,700/- at different stages for the aforesaid purpose but the Opposite Parties failed to perform their duties.  The complainants sought refund from the Opposite Parties but to no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties the instant complaint has been filed.

    

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties in their joint reply stated that complainant No.1 had never availed the services of the Opposite Parties whereas complainant No.2 who had availed the services of Opposite Parties paid the charges of Rs.12,500/- for immigration to Australia which were eventually refunded on the request of complainant No.2 on compassionate grounds, however, the Opposite Parties were never bound to do so.  Moreover no charges were ever paid by the complainants for processing their application for immigration to Canada.  It has been stated that the complainant No.2 was working as Insurance agent with LIC of India and the Opposite Parties had procured positive outcome of the profile of complainant No.2 from VETASSES which is an Australian body for assessing the profile of the applicants before final approval by the Australian Embassy. Complainant No.2 supplied his work experience certificate from LIC of India and therefore, the assessment of complainant was correct and positive and he was eligible for immigration subject to the condition of passing IELTS exam. But he failed to clear IELTS test.  Even the fee claimed to be paid to the Opposite Parties were not charged by them except Rs.12,500/-, which was also refunded later on compassionate ground.  The complainant paid R$810 as processing fee directly to the Australian Govt. Body VETASSES using his credit card and not to Opposite Parties as claimed by them.  Complainant No.1 had paid the fees of Rs.12,500/- as test fees to the IELTS test conducting body and not to the Opposite Parties.  It has further been stated that as per rules, in case the case of any applicant is rejected then eventuality the fees paid as application money is never returned to the applicant. In the case of the complainants the applications money was returned by the Canadian Embassy as the case file of the complainants was returned with the objection that birth certificate of complainant No.2 was not supplied. Complainant No.2 was clearly informed before sending the documents that his name in the birth certificate was mentioned as Mr.Tarun Kumar rather than Mr.Tarun Kinger as mentioned on passport. He was advised to rectify in his birth certificate before finally applying to the embassy but he himself insisted that he has no time to do so and requested that his matriculation certificate be used as birth proof. It has been denied that the Opposite Parties did not intimate the complainant regarding return of the case. The complainants were duly informed about the reason for return of their case file and complainant No.2 was advised to rectify his birth certificate. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The complainants have filed a rejoinder, wherein they have reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

7.     The case of the Complainants is that Complainant No.2 first time approached the Opposite Parties for Australian Immigration and for this purpose he paid the processing fee of Rs.12,500/- and paid another fee of 810$ to VETASSES for the processing of his application under Skilled Worker Category. The grouse of the Complainants is that despite the fact that VETASSES cleared the case of Complainant No.2, still the Opposite Parties forced him to prepare his case for Canada and not to Australia, to which the Complainant agreed. After being satisfied with the documents submitted by the Complainant No.2, the Opposite Parties processed and prepared his application for Canada. The allegation of the Complainant No.2 is that his case was rejected due to non-submission of the Birth Certificate to the Canadian Embassy by OPs as he gave the same to them alongwith other documents. It has been urged that the Complainants provided Birth Certificate, but the Opposite Parties due to their negligent attitude did not attach the same along with the other documents. Even the fact of rejection of the application of the Complainant No.2 by Canadian Embassy was concealed by the Opposite Parties. It has been further urged that despite this if Opposite Parties would have informed the Complainants in time, they could have refilled the application after attaching the required documents. Though an amount of Rs.12,500/- which was charged by the Opposite Parties was refunded to the Complainant No.2, still a huge amount has been spent by the Complainants at different stages, and they have to face the failure of their attempt.    

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant No.1 never availed their services and the Complainant No.2 who availed the services was refunded the charged fee of Rs.12,500/- on compassionate grounds, despite the fact that the Opposite Parties were never bound to do so. It has been urged that the Complainant No.2 paid 810$ as processing fee directly to the VETASSES (an Australian Body) using his credit card and not to OPs. The case of Complainant No.2 was rejected due to the non-submission of the proper Birth Certificate by the Complainant No.2 before applying to the Embassy. Despite reminders by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant No.2 himself did not pay attention to submit the proper Birth Certificate, therefore, the Opposite Parties are nowhere responsible for the failure of the case of Complainant No.2.   

 

9.     It is evident from Annexure A-10 annexed at Pg. No.39 of the paper-book that the application of the Complainant No.2 was returned from Canada without any positive results due to non-enclosure of his Birth Certificate. Annexure A-7 (Pg. No.30 of the paper-book) contains the document check-list for applying under Skilled Worker Category. Over this document, there is a ‘Note’, which reads as under:-

 

“Note:-If you are unable to provide any of the requested documentation, include with your application, a written explanation with full details as to why that documentation is unavailable and any documentation that would support your claim. If your application lacks any of the documents without a reasonable justification, it will be returned to you or in certain circumstances could result in the refusal of your application.”

 

 

          It is noteworthy that the aforesaid note specifically is meant for the Permanent Residency under Federal Skilled Workers Class. There is specific mention that if any applicant is unable to provide any document, he/she has to give a written explanation for non-availability of that particular document for which a reasonable justification of the Applicant is required. But, in the case in hand, no such written objection was raised by the Opposite Parties for lack of any document (Birth Certificate). Had the Opposite Parties, being Service Providers/ Facilitators, objected the same, after scrutinizing the file of the Complainant No.2, thereby giving him ample opportunity for providing reasonable justification, the same would have been answered or responded to by the Complainant No.2 there and then. We feel that Complainant No.2 who was spending huge amount out of his hard earned money and was doing all possible efforts for his settlement aboard must have given reasonable answer/solution for the objection, if any, in case the same was raised by the Opposite Parties. But, there is no such authentic document on the file to show that the Opposite Parties at any stage objected to any of the documents filed by the Complainant No.2. Therefore, we feel Opposite Parties have miserably failed in rendering proper services to the Complainants, primarily by checking the document check-list which is the basic requirement of the procedure for the purpose of immigration.    

 

10.     So far as the payment of processing fee of 810$ by the Complainant no.2 is concerned, it is the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to prove that how the Complainant No.2 offered money to a Company in Australia. Pertinently, the Complainant No.2 did not go to Australia for getting the contract entered into with the unknown party (VETASSES) at Australia. This shows that the Opposite Parties have created another shield for their own benefit. If the Opposite Parties themselves were not competent enough to proceed with the case of the Complainant No.2 to the Australian High Commission, then there was no reason for them to get into any kind of contract/ agreement with the Complainant No.2. This act of involving its innocent Clients unnecessarily into Agreement with unknown parties for their own selfish motive proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. We feel that throughout the entire process of immigration the Opposite Parties did not support the Complainants nor performed their duties upto the level as expected from them. Even after spending huge amount, energy and precious time, the Complainants had to face the failure of their attempt to setle aboard. Ultimately, by giving great harassment to the Complainants, the Opposite Parties refunded meagre amount.

 

11.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint should succeed. The same is accordingly, partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]    To refund 810$(equivalent value in rupees, on the date of filing of the complaint) to the Complainants paid towards processing fee to VETASSES.

 

[b]    To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants;

 

[c]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

12.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] and [b] above, apart from paying costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

13.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

28^th December, 2015                           

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER