BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

====

Gurpreet Kaur d/o S.Nahar Singh r/o House No.90, Street No.3, Ward No.2, Punia Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

        Health Way Immigration Consultants Private Ltd., SCO No.49, Sector 42-C, through its authorized signatory.

                ……Opposite Party.

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                                        PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                     MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Sukhjit Singh, Counsel for complainant.

                    Sh.Varinder Arora, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Divanshu Jain,                          Counsel for OP.

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he availed the services of the OP for the purpose of applying for a student visa and paid a sum of Rs.37,000/- on 26.6.2009. It has been further stated that the OP again demanded Rs.60,000/- for the completion of other formalities, and as such, she made the payment of Rs.60,000/- on 3.7.2009 but no receipt was issued. The complainant completed all the formalities as required by the OP.

                The complainant received a letter dated 5.10.2009 from the Immigration Section of the OP, whereby, the application of the complainant for student visa had been refused due to the fault of the OP as it presented the case of the complainant in a highly negligent manner to the embassy. The complainant requested the OP to refund the amount and also sent legal notice but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.                OP filed the reply, wherein, the preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer was raised. On merits, it has been admitted that the Contract of Engagement for arrangement of student visa was executed between the parties on 26.6.2009 for providing assistance in obtaining the student visa. It has been pleaded that the OP had given no assurance/ guarantee to the complainant to provide student visa.  The grant or refusal of visa completely depends upon the discretion of the Embassy Authorities and over which, the OP has no control. The said fact was made clear to the complainant, when she visited the office of OP.

                   It has been further pleaded that the complainant paid Rs.37,000/- and the said amount is non refundable. It has been further pleaded that amount of Rs.60,000/- was never demanded nor paid to the OP. It has been further pleaded that the visa of the complainant got rejected due to her own negligence as she failed to satisfy the Canadian Embassy. The complainant approached the OP and settled all the disputes by signing No Objection Certificate/Letter of Completion dated 31.10.2009. The complainant has undertaken that she will not initiate any proceedings and all the disputes against the company stand settled.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has                     been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                 We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and the proxy Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record. 

5.                The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.37,000/- on 26.6.2009 to the OP vide receipt – Annexure C-2 and the amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid on 3.7.2009 but the OP did not issue the receipt. It was further argued that the complainant received a letter dated 5.10.2009 – Annexure C-3 from the Immigration Section of the OP, whereby, the application of the complainant for student visa had been refused due to the fault of the OP as it presented the case of the complainant in a highly negligent manner to the embassy.

6.                The learned proxy Counsel for the OP admitted the payment of Rs.37,000/- qua receipt – Annexure C-2. He vehemently denied that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.60,000/-. He further argued that the amount of Rs.37,000/- is non-refundable. It was further argued that the grant or refusal of visa completely depends upon the discretion of the Embassy Authorities and over which, the OP has no control. It was lastly argued that the complainant settled all the disputes by signing No Objection Certificate/Letter of Completion dated 31.10.2009 – Annexure R-2.

7.                To prove the payment of Rs.60,000/-, the complainant has not placed on record any receipt issued by the OP. The learned proxy Counsel for the OP has argued that the amount of Rs.37,000/- paid through receipt – Annexure C-2 is non-refundable. The OP has produced on record the Contract of Engagement (copy of the Contract of Engagement) – Annexure R-1, qua which, it has been recorded that the retainer fee of Rs.37,000/- is non-refundable. The said Contract of Engagement – Annexure R-1 bears the signature of the complainant. Thus, it is held that the complainant is a signatory to the Contract of Engagement – Annexure R-1, hence, she is not entitled to seek the refund of Rs.37,000/- as she is a signatory to the document – Annexure R-1, so she is estopped from claiming the refund of Rs.37,000/- from the OP.

8.                The matter does not rest here. The OP has produced on record the No Objection Certificate/Letter of Completion dated 31.10.2009 – Annexure R-2 signed by the brother of the complainant, wherein, it has been recorded that Gurpreet Kaur – complainant had absolved the company from all the liabilities towards her. There is no dispute with regard to the dues of any kind and no proceedings either legal or otherwise shall be initiated against the company. It is clear from the zimini order dated 24.1.2012 that the complainant has not filed the rejoinder. Thus, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not disputed the signatures of her brother on the No Objection Certificate – Annexure R-2. Therefore, the said certificate goes unrebutted and uncontroverted from the side of the complainant. Thus, it is held that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint in view of Annexure R-1 and R-2.  It has already been held in para supra (s) that the amount of Rs.37,000/- is non-refundable and the complainant is also estopped, per Annexure R-2 to file the present complaint.

9.                As a result of the above discussed, the complaint cannot succeed. With the result, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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