STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.267 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution:04.08.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :22.03.2011

1.     M/s Rimwea Career Forum Limited, SCO No.23-25, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory/M.D.

2.     Dr. Kapil Kumar Garg, Managing Director, M/s Rimwea Career Forum Limited, SCO No.23-25, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellants.

V e r s u s

Sh. Hardev Singh son of Late Sh. Hari Singh R/o VPO Sheikhpur Bagh, District Nawanshahr, Punjab.

              ....Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. R. K. Dogra, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Sh. Sandeep Jain, Advocate for respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

                    This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OPs against the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the OPs/Appellants were jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- charged as Retainer Fee; Rs.23,100/- deposited with the Canadian Embassy as initial assessment fee; Rs.15,000/- as compensation for physical harassment, mental agony and pain on account of refusal of Canadian Visa and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which OPs were made liable to pay the sum of Rs.58,100/- along with interest @18% per annum since the date of filing the complaint i.e. 9.10.2009 till the amount is paid to the complainant.

2.                 Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he applied for immigration to Canada under Skilled Worker category through OPs and submitted all the required documents. It was averred that OPs assured that his case would be processed within four months and a fee of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the office of OPs on 18.3.2009 against proper receipt (Annexure C-2). As per the complainant, he also paid 550 Canadian Dollars equivalent to Indian Rupees 23,100/-. It was alleged that the OPs failed to process his file within the requisite time of four months and in the month of May 2009, the complainant received his File No.B055317312 directly from the Embassy of Canada. It was next averred that the period of said four months elapsed on 4.9.2009 but nothing was done by the OPs to get immigration for the complainant, when the original certificates and other documents of the complainant were already in possession of the OPs. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OPs as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part, the complainant filed the present complaint.

3.                 In their joint reply, OPs No.1 and 2 admitted that the complainant had approached them for getting immigration to Canada as Fedreal Skilled Worker and had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement (Annexure R-2) after being fully satisfied. They further asserted that proper guidance was provided to the complainant and it was specifically told to him that if he did not appear in ILETS examination or secured less marks than 7 Bands, then OPs could not be held liable for the same. OPs admitted the receipt of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and as regards 550 Canadian Dollars, which were not refundable, the same were paid to the respective agency directly by the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                 The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 18.3.2010 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

6.                 The OPs have challenged the impugned order through this appeal.

7.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

8.                 The learned counsel for the OPs/appellants has argued that there was no deficiency in service on their part; that they have already intimated to the complainant vide Para No. 5.5 of the agreement (Annexure R-2) that he was required to clear ILETS examination with minimum 7 Bands as per requirement of Canadian Embassy; that he had received the letter in May 2009 in which also he was required to clear the language test within 120 days but the complainant did not do anything and has rather started accusing the OPs/appellants wrongly. This contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent. According to him, the complainant was never informed by the OPs for clearing the ILETS examination and if the said examination had not been cleared, he should not have asked to deposit the amount of Canadian Dollars 550 equivalent to Rs.23,100/-; that proper guidance for which the services of OPs were engaged was provided and therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum should be maintained.

9.                 First we take the case whether proper guidance was provided to the complainant or not. In Para No.4 of the complaint, it was admitted that the documents produced by the complainant were duly checked by the OPs and he was told thereafter that he fulfilled the requirements and was eligible for migration. It was mentioned in Para No.6 of the complaint that he was told that his case would be processed by the Canadian Embassy within four months and he was told that the complainant would be successful as he fulfilled all the requirements. It is mentioned in Para No.9 that the complainant arranged all the documents asked by the OPs for annexing with the application. It, therefore, shows that the case of the complainant was duly examined by the OPs and proper guidance was given to the complainant.

10.               Annexure R-2 is the agreement entered into between the parties, which is admittedly signed by the complainant. In Para No.5.5 of this agreement, the complainant was clearly told that he would listen, speak, read and write fluently in English and must clear ILETS exam with minimum 7 Bands as per requirement of Canadian Embassy as per initial assessment. The learned District Forum did not accept the signing of this agreement as sufficient notice of the contents thereof, which approach is legally incorrect. The concluding line of the agreement makes it clear that the service agreement was read and thoroughly understood and signed (by the complainant). It was nowhere mentioned by the complainant in his complaint, if he was not told by the OPs about the requirement of clearing ILETS examination. The learned District Forum, therefore, did not appreciate the facts properly to reach a just conclusion.

11.               It was also held by the learned District Forum that it was the duty of the OPs to thoroughly scrutinize the papers submitted by the complainant, appraise his application in respect of eligibility in detail before sending the same to the Canadian Embassy. As held above, this service was properly rendered by the OPs. The learned District Forum further held that they should have pointed out the discrepancies or wanting documents to the complainant. The OPs had already mentioned in Para No.5.5 about this requirement also. It was further held that as a matter of fact, the OPs should not have forwarded the case of the complainant to the Canadian Embassy so long as he was not fulfilling all the requirements of the terms and conditions including the requirement of appearing in the ILETS examination. The learned District Forum, however, lost sight of the fact that for moving an application, it was not necessary to clear ILETS or attach a certificate to that effect. Needless to mention that the processing of the application itself takes time and in the meantime, the intending immigrants clear the ILETS examination before they are called for interview for immigration. The complainant had already undertaken vide Para No.5.5 to clear the said examination. His application was forwarded to the Government of Canada and was recommended for further assessment by a visa office as per Annexure R-4. He was, therefore, required to clear the language test within 120 days from the date of issue of the said letter regarding which he had already been told by the OPs vide para No.5.5, referred to above. The complainant was intending to migrate to Canada where English is the language spoken in that country. These days, even illiterate persons are aware of the fact that in order to settle in a foreign country, they must be able to read, write and speak the language of that country. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that the complainant was not aware of this fact that he was required to clear ILETS examination before appearing for the interview. The deficiency here was on the part of the complainant himself in not clearing the examination regarding which he had agreed vide Annexure R-2 and he is putting the blame on the OPs instead of owning the same. The observations of the learned District Forum that proper consultation or documentation was not provided or that application of the complainant was forwarded to the Canadian Embassy as a Post Office, therefore, is not based on any evidence.

12.               The learned District Forum in Para No.5(v) held that there is no evidence on record that a copy of the agreement was ever provided to the complainant though it was nowhere mentioned by the complainant in his complaint. However, the learned District Forum hastened to add that even presuming that the complainant did have a copy of the agreement with him, still it was prime duty of the OPs to inform him in writing as to what were the detailed requirements of getting immigration to Canada. When at the time of entering into an agreement (Annexure R-2), the complainant himself was undertaking his responsibility of clearing the ILETS examination, we fail to understand as to what other information in writing was required to be given to him by the OPs. It was also accepted by the learned District Forum that the letter received from the Canadian Embassy was also forwarded to the complainant but there was no mention in the same if he was required to clear the ILETS examination with 7 Bands. It is, however, not the case of the complainant if ILETS examination is not necessary to be cleared. The learned District Forum appears to have lost sight of the contents of letter (Annexure R-4) under the heading “Languages”, which required the complainant to have excellent speaking, reading and writing skills. The OPs have already informed the complainant vide Para No.5.5 of Annexure R-2 to secure a minimum of 7 Bands in order to claim proficiency in the language. When the OPs have already intimated to the complainant in writing and the complainant had entered into an agreement undertaking to clear the ILETS examination with a minimum of 7 Bands, we are of the opinion that no further requirement of giving any other information by the OPs to the complainant could be expected. It was sheer deficiency on the part of the complainant and if he did not clear the ILETS examination, he cannot blame anybody else but himself.

13.               In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs/appellants and the complaint against them could not have been allowed. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 18.3.2010 and dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

14.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

22^nd March 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.267 of 2010)

Argued by:            Sh. R. K. Dogra, Advocate for the appellants.

                    Sh. Sandeep Jain, Advocate for respondent.

Dated the 22^nd day of March, 2011.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been allowed.

Ad/-