Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/588/2023

RAJESH RANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GLOBAL CONSULTANT - Opp.Party(s)

SOURAV DUVEDI

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/588/2023
Date of Institution	:	18.12.2023
Date of Decision	:	2/08/2024

 

Rajesh Rana, S/o Shri Mangal Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Chattara, Tehsil & District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

Complainant......

 

VERSUS

 

1. GLOBAL CONSULTANT SCO-196-197 2ND FLOOR SECTOR 34-A CHANDIGARH-160034 THROUGH ITS MANAGER/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAMELY MS. PRERNA AND AMAR PRATAP SINGH.

2. MS. PRERNA MANAGER/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF GLOBAL CONSULTANT AT SCO-196- 197 2ND FLOOR SECTOR 34-A CHANDIGARH-160034.

3. AMAR PRATAP SINGH MANAGER/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF GLOBAL CONSULTANT AT SCO-196- 197 2ND FLOOR SECTOR 34-A CHANDIGARH-160034.

IInd Address of OPs No. 1 to 3:-

Global Consultant (GC) Chandigarh SCO 146-147, 4^th floor, Sector 34-A, Sector 34, Chandigarh  PIN 160022,

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sourabh Duvedi, Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

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 OPs have been running visa consultation and immigration business  under the name and style of Global Consultant through its Manager/authorized representative Prerna and Amar Partap Singh. The complainant came across with an advertisement on newspaper as well as online platform that the OP company was offering work permits for Canada. On this, the complainant contacted the OPs company and discussed his case with OP No.2. On 11.3.2023  the complainant visited the office of OPs and OP No.2 explained all the details regarding work visa for Canada including expenses and by believing in the authenticity of OPs’ services as well as the assurances given by OP No.2 to the complainant, the complainant proceeded further and on the request of OP No.2, he paid an amount of Rs.27,000/- on the spot to OP No.2, by transferring an amount of Rs.12,000/- through online transaction and by paying Rs.15,000/- in cash. Thereafter the complainant was given call by OP No.2 for 4.4.2023 and was asked to sign an offer letter and agreement Annexure C-1 which was to be executed between the complainant and OPs and the complainant was further asked to make part payment. Accordingly the complainant made further payment by transferring an amount of Rs.38,940/- in the account of the OPs through online transaction and paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and in this manner made payment of Rs.88,940/-. On receiving the aforesaid amount,  the OPs assured the complainant that work permit would be processed within 60-70 days.  However nothing was done by the OPs within the said period. The complainant tried to contact the Ops but his call was not attended by them.  Thereafter the complainant contacted OP No.3  who informed the complainant that there was some issue and the complainant would have to wait for additional  60-70 days. It is alleged that the OPs received Rs.1,25,940/-  from the complainant  but failed to render the service to the complainant and are not attending the phone calls of the complainant. When nothing was done by the OPs, the complainant sent legal notice Annexure C-5 to the OPs for refund of the paid amount but to no avail. 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 were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 19.3.2024.

2. In order to prove their case, complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that  he had paid a total sum of Rs.1,25,940/- to the OPs for availing their services for providing work permit visa for Canada and the OPs have failed to render the said services to the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is deficiency on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for and for that purpose the  documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1,  the Agreement clearly indicates that the OPs acknowledged payment of Rs.33000/-  made by the complainant to the OPs. Annexure C-2  clearly indicates  that an amount of Rs.38940/-  and Rs.15000/-  was also transferred by the complainant in the account of the OPs. Annexure C-3  also indicates that Rs.12,000/-  and Rs.15,000/- were also transferred by the complainant through online transaction in the account of the OPs and in this manner it stands proved on record that complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.1,13,940/-   to the OPs. Though the complainant has also claimed that he had made payment of Rs.12,000/-  in cash to the OPs but he has failed to prove on record the said payment made by him to the OPs. Thus, it is safe to hold that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,13,940/-  to the OPs  instead of Rs.1,25,940/-  as claimed by the complainant.
   3. Thus from the entire evidence led by complainant one this is proved on record that the OPs have failed to render the services in pursuance to the Agreement Annexure C-1  executed between the parties as the OPs neither assisted the  complainant in obtaining the work permit visa nor refunded the amount paid by the complainant to them, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
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 ₹1,13,940/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
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 2/08/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member