Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/507/2018

Shivam - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCFS Immigration Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/507/2018
Date of Institution	:	10/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	25/01/2019

 

Shivam S/o Shri Suresh Kumar, VPO Shahzadpur, District Ambala, Haryana.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

HCFS Immigration Pvt. Limited, SCO 146-147-148, Level-II, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/Incharge.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Suresh Kumar, Authorized Representative of Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party ex-parte.

 

PER Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party, which is an immigration company providing pre & post visa consultancy services for sending the students overseas as per their eligibility profile, for getting study visa for Canada (Quebec). The Opposite Party kept the original passport of the Complainant and other documents for assessing his eligibility. Opposite Party also charges Rs.20,000/- (Receipt Annexure C-1) as assessment charges and after getting completed the documents, asked the Complainant to wait for telephone call from it. During February, 2018, the Complainant received a telephone call from the Opposite Party that his eligibility has been assessed and his profile has been approved for offer letter from Institute Teccart in Paralegal Technology (Annexure C-2). The Opposite Party then charged Rs.14,000/- which was paid in cash but not receipt was issued by the Opposite Party saying that the said amount would be adjusted later on. Believing the version of Opposite Party regarding receipt of offer letter, the Complainant completed the documentation as per its advice and deposited Rs.50,000/- vide receipt dated 9.3.2018 (Annexure C-3). Opposite Party then asked the Complainant to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1,90,000/- so that his case could be processed at the earliest. Accordingly, the Complainant paid the said amount of Rs.1,90,000/- vide receipt dated 9.3.2018 (Annexure C-4). The Opposite Party also executed Contract of Engagement for Canada (Quebec) Study Visa on 9.3.2018 (Annexure C-5). As per duties enshrined in the contract of engagement, the Complainant completed all the required documentation and fulfilled the financial eligibility by depositing the required amount. However, the Opposite Party did not perform the duties assigned to it as per the contract of engagement as it never informed the Complainant about the status of his case file for grant of visa. The Complainant made repeated telephonic calls and repeated visits to the premises of the Opposite Party to know the status of his case file for grant of Visa, but every time the Complainant was put off on one pretext or the other. Eventually, on 5.6.2018 the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to return his original documents and refund the amount paid (Annexure C-6). After repeated visits and great persuasion, the Opposite Party returned the original documents during July, 2018 but asked the Complainant to wait for refund of the amount. However, no reply has been received so far. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
3.         Complainant led evidence.
4.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Authorized Representative of the Complainant.
5.         Significantly, the Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
6.         The Complainant claims that despite having received a huge amount of Rs.2,74,000/- the Opposite Party failed to provide the requisite services and also did not refund the same even after repeated requests, which according to him amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In his prayer clause, the Complainant has sought refund of Rs.2,74,000/-. However, per material on record, we cannot grant said relief in toto to the Complainant, for the sole reason that as per the receipts produced on record in the shape of Annexure C-1, C-3 &   C-4, the Complainant had made a total payment of Rs.2,60,000/- to the Opposite Party. It is important to note that there is nothing on record to substantiate that the Complainant paid Rs.14,000/- to the Opposite Party.  In the absence of which, we cannot pass any order against the Opposite Party for paying the said amount. In this backdrop, we are of the concerted opinion that the Complainant is only entitled to the refund Rs.2,60,000/-, along with compensation for physical & mental tension suffered at the hands of Opposite Party, besides costs of the present proceedings. 
7.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have initiate steps to refund the amount paid by the Complainant promptly, which it failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Party even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]    To refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,60,000/- to the Complainant;

[b]    To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

[c]    To pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

                The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till these are paid, apart from compliance of the directions as in sub-para [c].

9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
25/01/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”