Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/144

Chinderpal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Global Education - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Mittal

27 Aug 2019

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No.      :  140 of 2014/

                                  144 of 2019

Date of Institution :   17.10.2014/

                                   03.06.2019

Date of Decision    :   27.08.2019   

Chhinder Pal Kaur wd/o Bikramjit Singh Darbi r/o Village Gumti Khurd, Tehsil Jaitu, District, Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Global Education & Services through its Manager/ Prop./Owner Anil Saxena r/o House No. 318 E, 2^nd Floor, Greater Kalish-11, New Delhi-110048.
2. Anil Saxena r/o House No. 318 E, 2^nd Floor, Greater Kalish-11, New Delhi-110048.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant.

 Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.   

 

ORDER     

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                 Previously, complaint no.140 of  2014 titled as Chhinder Pal Kaur Vs Global Education and Services was allowed by this Forum vide order dated 6.07.2015 with directions to OPs to pay Rs.4 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9% alongwith Rs.10,000/-as compensation for harassment and

cc no.-144 of 2019

Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses. Being aggrieved by the order of this Forum, OPs preferred First Appeal No.1072 of 2015 before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, which was accepted vide order dated 8.08.2016. Complainant was dissatisfied with the order passed by Hon’ble State Commission and for redressal of his grievance, she approached Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by way of filing Revision Petition bearing no.949 of 2018. Hon’ble National Commission disposed off  the said revision petition vide order dated 29.04.2019 in which all impugned orders were set aside with directions to OPs to file before the District Forum a) approval dated 23.12.2009 received vide confirmationno.7598879 as well as document evidencing submission of the Arranged Employment documents by the respondent to the Canadian Embassy, for further processing, during January, 2010 and b) the application allegedly submitted by the complainant to the Canadian Embassy seeking to withdraw his application and seeking refund of the amount paid by him to the Canadian Embassy.  Direction was also given to Ops to pay Rs.25,000/-to complainant as cost of litigation. Parties were directed to appear before this Forum on 31.05.2019 and Forum was directed to decide the present complaint afresh after giving oppertunity to complainant to rebut the documents allowed to be filed by the respondent.

2                                             In compliance of the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 29.04.2019, ld counsel for OPs tendered before this Forum Demand Draft No.506356 dt 27.05.2019 worth Rs.25,000/-, which was duly received by counsel for complainant and thereafter, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of  

 

cc no.-144 of 2019

Anil Saxena Ex OP-1 and  documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-6 and closed the additional evidence on behalf of OPs.

3                                            Proper oppertunity was given to complainant for rebuttal to controvert the additional evidence led by OPs. Ld counsel for complainant suffered statement before this Forum that he does not want to tender any evidence and prayed for considering the evidence earlier tendered by him as part and parcel of his evidence on behalf of complainant.

4                                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs 10 lacs and has also prayed to direct Ops to pay Rs 4,00,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony besides Rs 50,000/- as cost of litigation and not to leave India without permission of this Forum.

5                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that being a skilled worker, husband of complainant wanted to go to Canada for work and for this purpose, he applied for visa and paid 1250 $ dollars to the Embassy and  after filing application for getting visa, husband of complainant visited the embassy many times, but officers of the Embassy kept saying that his visa would come soon, but even after lapse of many years, her husband did not get the visa. On 9.10.2008, OPs held a seminar at Bus Stand, Jaitu and in that seminar, OPs assured to clear their documents from the Embassy. OPs assured the husband of complainant that OPs would get cleared the visa file of her husband from the Embassy and he would get the visa very soon and for this purpose, OPs demanded Rs 10 lacs alongwith copy of passport, photographs, ration card etc of her husband.

cc no.-144 of 2019

On 10.10.2008, complainant and her husband gave Rs 2 lacs alongwith documents to OPs and thereafter, OPs issued a receipt for Rs 2 lacs in the name of her husband Bikramjit Singh Darbi and after receiving the said amount, OPs assured them that OPs would get cleared all the documents of husband of complainant from Embassy and thereafter passing of 6 months, OPs told her husband that his visa is ready and asked for remaining amount of Rs 8 lacs.  On 3.02.2009, OP-2 visited the village of complainant and took Rs 8 lacs from her husband, but gave receipt for only Rs 2 lacs on pretext that OPs cannot show entire amount in their account. OPs again assured him that he should be ready to go to Canada as he would get visa very early. But even after lapse of long time, her husband did not get visa and OPs kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Now, complainant and her husband had no other option except to wait for the visa as they have already paid an amount of Rs 10 lacs to OPs. As OPs assured her husband that he would get visa very soon and he would go to Canada for work, therefore, husband of complainant did not do any work in India and due to this, they suffered great loss of income per year. In June 2013, they visited office of OPs where OPs again assured to get visa within few days and on assurance of Ops, they came back to their place in Gumti Khurd. In November 2013, they received a rejection letter through post about the cancellation of visa of her husband alongwith cheque dt 26.11.2013 for 1250 dollars issued by Embassy with remarks that Federal Skilled Worker Refund. After that, both complainant and her husband visited the office of OPs requesting them to refund the amount of Rs 10 lacs given by her husband  and also asked about reason for rejection of her visa, but OPs made a lame excuse and told them that husband of complainant was never qualified to get visa for Canada. Thus, OPs cheated and insulted them and played

cc no.-144 of 2019

fraud with complainant and her husband and due to this act of OPs husband of complainant fell ill and died due to heart attack at the tender age of 33 years. Complainant  made several requests to Ops to refund her amount of Rs 10 lacs given by her husband to OPs but all in vain. All this act of OPs has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

6                                                   In reply, averments taken by Ops are that present complaint is false, frivolous and no cause of action arises against them. Complaint is filed with ulterior motive to harass the OPs and present complaint is hopelessly time barred as it is instituted on 17.10.2014, after delay of more than 5 years and as per Section 24 A of the C P Act 1986, complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action and moreover, complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. It is denied that any seminar was conducted in Jaitu and asserted that OPs are based at Delhi and complainant and her husband never appeared before OPs. Therefore, present complaint is miserably time barred and is filed only to harass and humiliate the Ops. Complainant has concealed the material facts and is not entitled for any relief as sought for by her. It is submitted that this assignment for arranging a job offer for  husband of complainant was taken during October 2008, getting that job offer approved from Service Cananda and forwarding the approval for further processing to Canadian Immigration department to be considered alongwith his application, which he himself filed during 2006 and in that arrangement, total fee of Rs 6 lacs was to be paid as Rs 2 lacs upfront, Rs 2 lacs on finding the employer for him and Rs 2 lacs after getting

cc no.-144 of 2019

the approval from service Canada and forwarding it for further processing to Canadian Immigration authorities. After October 2008, answering Ops started searching a suitable employer for the husband of complainant and during January 2009, he was interviewed and was finally offered a job as a Machinist in January 2009 by M/s A I Railing & Gates ltd in British Columbia in Cananda and then in February 2009, he paid second instalment of Rs 2 lacs in Delhi and on both the payments, acknowledgment was given to him at Delhi. Subsequently, all documents were forwarded to Service Canada for approval, which came on 23^rd December, 2009 vide confirmation no. 7598879 and during this process, answering OPs insisted the husband of complainant to improve his English. Though he appeared on several occasions for his IELTs test but could not get a desired level in all attempts. Counsel for Ops submitted that Ops arranged employment documents to Canadian Embassy for further processing in January 2010 and also insisted husband of complainant to make payment of last instalment of Rs 2 lacs, which he never paid. Ops made several calls to him, but he neither appeared before them nor made payment of their dues and thereafter, husband of complainant changed his plans and withdrew his application. He applied to Immigration Authorities for refund of fees which he himself paid initially during 2006 and when his application was closed on his request, he got the refund. As complainant is claiming that their case was declined or rejected, but it was never declined or rejected, rather it was closed on request of husband of complainant and he got his refund. Complainant has filed this complaint on false, frivolous and vexatious ground and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OPs denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite parties. All other

cc no.-144 of 2019

allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties.

7                                                         Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence. After remand back of file from Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, complainant was given oppertunity to tender evidence in rebuttal of documents produced by Ops, but ld counsel for complainant for complainant suffered statement before the Forum that their earlier evidence be read as evidence and complainant party closed the additional evidence.

8                                                  In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anil Saxena as Ex. OP-1 and then, closed the evidence and after remand back of complaint case, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of  Anil Saxena Ex OP-1 and  documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-6 and closed the additional evidence on behalf of OPs.

9                                          We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                                    Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the husband of complainant applied for Visa for Canada and also paid as fee 1250$ to Canadian Embassy along with his application. Her husband approached Canadian Embassy several times but his Visa file was not cleared by the Embassy.

cc no.-144 of 2019

On 09.10.2008,  Ops held a Seminar at Jaitu in which they assured that the interested candidates to get cleared all the documents for getting Visa from the concerned Embassy and for providing Visa. The complainant and her husband also attended that Seminar and OPs assured that they would get cleared the Visa file of the husband of the complainant from the Embassy and the husband of the complainant would get visa very soon for Canada. Ops demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as fees for this purpose and also demanded copy of passport, photographs and other documents for the same. The fee was to be paid in the instalments. On 10.10.2008 the complainant and her husband paid Rs.2,00,000/- to Ops at Jaitu and also submitted necessary documents to Ops. The Ops issued a duly receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of husband of complainant and the copy of the same is Ex C-4. The Ops assured that they would get cleared all the documents from the Embassy very soon and the husband of the complainant would get Visa of Canada. Her husband remained in contact with Ops through telephone and after about six months, Ops informed them that his Visa is ready and asked them to deposit balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with them. On 03.02.2009 OPs  took Rs.8,00,000/- as balance amount from the husband of complainant but he issued a receipt for only Rs.2,00,000/- and give excuse that they cannot show entire amount in their accounts. The copy of receipt dated 03.02.2009 as Ex C-6. Ops again assured her husband that he should be ready to go to Canada as his Visa would come very soon, but husband of the complainant did not receive any Visa and the Ops put the matter on the one pretext to other and kept assuring the husband of the complainant that he would get visa very soon. Both complainant and her husband had no other alternative except to wait for Visa as they had already paid the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Ops. In the month of June 2013 the husband of the

cc no.-144 of 2019

complainant visited the office of Ops and Ops again assured him that he will get the Visa within few days as all the documents got cleared from Embassy. In the month of November 2013 the complainant and her husband received a rejection letter through post from Canadian Embassy vide which they informed that the Visa of husband of complainant has been rejected and they also received a cheque dated 26.11.2013. The copy of the letter and cheque Ex C-5 for amount of 1250$ issued by the Embassy which was paid by the husband of the complainant as application money. The complainant and her husband visited the office of the Ops and demanded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- paid by them to the Ops back as they had not pursued the visa application of the husband of the complainant and the Ops make excuses and told the complainant and her husband that husband of the complainant was not qualified to get Visa. The OPs want to cheat the complainant and her husband, the Ops insulted the complainant and her husband. Due to the rejection of the Visa and fraud made by the Ops with the husband of the complainant, he fell ill and died in age of 33 years. Complainant demanded refund of amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Ops but they flatly refused to refund this amount. This act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Counsel for the complainant prayed for refund of amount deposited by them and alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

11                                            To controvert the argument of the complainant, the counsel for the Ops argued that the present complaint is baseless and false, complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint and it is only to file with ulterior motive. The present complaint is hopelessly time barred by limitation, as the husband of complainant paid the amount to the Ops on 10.10.2008 and 03.02.2009 i.e. about 5 years prior to the filing of this complaint and as per Section

cc no.-144 of 2019

24 A Consumer limitation for filing of the complaint is only 2 years, as such the present complaint is hopelessly time barred by limitation. The Ops never conducted any seminar at Jaitu and complainant and her husband never attended any Seminar at Jaitu. However, the counsel for the Ops admitted that the husband of complainant approached to Ops and Ops took assignment for findings a job for him in Canada and a fees of Rs.6,00,000/- was fixed between the parties for it which was to be paid in 3 instalments i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- upfront, Rs. 2,00,000/- as findings the employer for him and last Rs.2,00,000/- after approval for Canada and Canadian Immigration authorities. After 2008 Ops started searching a suitable employer for the husband of the complainant and in January 2009 Ops got interviewed the husband of the complainant and finally offered a job as Machinist by M/s A I Railing & Gates Limited, in British Columbia in Canada. The husband of the complainant pay 2^nd instalment to the Ops Rs.2,00,000/- at Delhi and both the payments the Ops duly issued receipt. All the documents were forwarded to Service Canada for requisite approval. During this process Ops insisted the husband of the complainant to improve his English and to appear in IELTS. He appeared in IELTS for several times. Ops submitted the Arranged Employment documents to the Canadian Embassy for further processing in January 2010. The Ops insisted many times to make payment of their remaining fees of Rs.2,00,000/- which was to be paid after getting the approval but the complainant or her husband did not pay the last instalment of fees to the Ops and the Ops are entitled to claim this amount from the complainant. Complainant or her husband or their representative never appeared before the Ops after January 2010. Ops denied that they assured the complainant that they will get cleared all the documents from the Embassy regarding the Visa of her husband. The only job of Ops was to get a job

cc no.-144 of 2019

offered and getting it approval for Service Canada and forwarding it to Canadian Immigration Authorities to improve his chances of getting success. They had nothing to do with the Visa file of the husband of the complainant. The Ops argued that the husband of the complainant changed his plan and himself withdrew his application for Visa from Canadian Embassy and applied to immigration authorities for refund of his fees which he himself paid initially during 2006 and his file was closed on his request by Canadian Embassy. His visa was never declined and rejected by Canadian Embassy. He himself withdrew his application and refund of fees. The Ops had fulfilled their job formalities and there was no deficiency in service on their part, rather they are entitled to claim Rs.2,00,000/- as their balance fee from complainant and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

12                                  After going through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by the parties on the file and arguments of the parties, this Forum find force in the contention of the Complainant.  The first issue raised by the Ops that the present complaint is barred by period of limitation The Ops had also filed an application to take this issue as preliminary issue and on their application our predecessor Forum has take this issue as preliminary issue and decided it vide their order dated 10.03.2015 and finds that the present complaint is within period of limitation and dismissed the application of Ops. Now it is admitted case of both the parties that husband of complainant hired the service of Ops to get job in Canada and for approval of his immigration document for Canada. The Ops denied that they took the assignment for getting the Visa and also to processing of the Visa. Application of husband of complainant filed with of the immigration authorities of Canada in the year 2006 and they have to only find service for the husband of

cc no.-144 of 2019

complainant in Canada. The Ops issued receipts of payment received from the husband of the complainant dated 10.10.2008 and 03.02.2009 Ex C-4 & Ex C-6 in which it is clearly mentioned that it is for further processing of immigration application for Canada including arranges employment and in their written reply in para 6 (a) of preliminary objections the Ops themselves admitted that they took assignment for arranging job for the husband of the complainant and for further  processing to the Canada Immigration Department  to be considered along with his application which is filed by the husband of the complainant himself in the year 2006, so the contention of the Ops that they had no concern with  Visa file of the husband of the complainant is not tenable. Ld Counsel for Ops stressed that the  husband of the complainant himself withdrew his application for Visa from Canadian Embassy and applied for refund of fees paid by him to Canadian Embassy. To controvert it, the complainant produced letter dated 24.05.2013 of Canadian Embassy vide which the application for Visa of husband of the complainant is terminated which is Ex C-2 and copy of cheque of 1250$ refunded by Canada Immigration Department Ex C-5 from which it is clear that the husband of complainant had not withdrew his application and it was terminated by the Canadian Immigration Department. On the other hand OPs did not produce any evidence in support of their allegation that the husband of complainant himself withdrew his application for visa from Canadian Embassy. Even after the orders of the Hon’ble National Commission, vide which they remanded this complaint for fresh decision by this Forum after giving oppertunity to OPs to produce application allegedly submitted by the husband of complainant to Canadian Embassy seeking to withdraw his application and for seeking refund of amount paid by him to Canadian Embassy. As such, Ops have failed to prove their allegation that the visa

cc no.-144 of 2019

application of the husband of complainant was not terminated by the operation of law, rather it was withdrawn by the husband of complainant himself. The Ops were duty bound to process the application for Visa of husband of complainant with Canada Authorities but they failed to do so and Visa of husband of complainant is rejected. However, the complainant alleged that they paid Rs.10,00,000/- to Ops as fees but complainant failed to prove the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to Ops on file and only payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- is proved on the file vide Ex C-4 & C-6 and the same is also admitted by the Ops.

13                                               Now, we are of considered opinion that Ops are failed to perform their duty to get cleared the Visa file of husband of the complainant from the Canadian Embassy which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint partly allowed. The Ops are ordered to refund of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9 % PA from the date of payment  i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- paid on 10.10.2008 and Rs.2,00,000/- paid on 03.02.2009 till final realization. OPs are also burdened to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by complainant and Rs 5000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant. Ops are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 27.08.2019       

                             (Parampal Kaur)         (Ajit Aggarwal)                                                                Member                         President