STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

1. Sunita Rani,aged about 36 years 8 months  w/o Naresh  Kumar;
2. Naresh Kumar, aged 40 years 6 months  S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh
3. Palak Kamboj, aged about 13 years 1 month  d/o Naresh Kumar through her mother and natural guardian appellant NO.1
4. Abhinav Kamboj  aged about 9 years S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar through his mother   and natural guardian appellant No.1

          All r/o H.No.2513-A, Sector 39-C, Chandigarh

              ... Appellants.

                                                 Versus

1. Heera consultations & Services, SCO No.509, Ist floor, Sector 70, Mohali (Punjab) having registered office at Heera consultations & Services, SCO No.509, Top floor, Sector 70, Mohali (Punjab) through its Director Kulvir Singh Kaura
2. Reet Kaur w/o Kulvir Singh Kaura, Director/owner of Heera Consultation and services SCO No.509, Ist floor, Sector 70, Mohali (Punjab)
3. Amandeep Singh, Manager of Heera consultation and services SCO No.509, Ist floor, Sector 70, Mohali (Punjab)       (2nd address H. No.2324, Sector 62-A, Wave Estate, Mohali)

                                                                            ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 19.07.2023 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.757/2022.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Ms. Poonam Verma,  Advocate for the  appellants .

                         Sh.Vineet Mittal,  Advocate for  the respondents.

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.07.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint, in the following terms;  

“In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

(i)to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;

                   (ii)to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.”

2.       Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainants/appellants  that  complainant No.1 applied for permanent residency of Canada for  herself and her family members  through the OPs/respondents  by paying advance of Rs.11,800/-  in the month of November 2017.   The contract with the OPs on behalf of complainant No.2 was signed by complainant No.1 and  out of total fees of Rs.4,41,000/- for the consultancy service,  complainants No.1&2 paid a total sum of Rs.2,41,000/- to the  OPs  from time to time. As and when  complainants No.1&2  enquired about the status of their immigration case, the OPs failed to provide any satisfactory response and kept demanding money from them. Ultimately when  the complainants   did not make further   payment, the  OPs stopped attending calls of the complainants   and did not attend them whenever they visited their office. The complainants then took up the matter with the Police  and after much persuasion, the OPs refunded the amount of Rs.2,41,000/- to the complainants.  It was alleged that the complainants  suffered a lot due to the negligent act of the OPs and  lost previous time of five years while waiting their immigration.  Alleging   deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission. 

3.               Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Parties/respondents appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint.     In their written statement, it was stated that   during processing of the file of the complainants, due assistance and whole information regarding  processing of the PR file to Canada was provided from time to time and nothing was concealed from the complainants. It was stated that  when  file of the complainants was being processed by the OPs, the complainants themselves failed to deposit the complete fee of Rs.4,41,000/- as per clause 3 of the contract of the engagement. It was further stated that it was the complainants who had shown their unwillingness to pursue their case file and filed police complainant   wherein the matter was  amicably settled between the parties and the complainants were made refund of Rs.2,41,000/- by the OPs as per settlement and the police complaint was withdrawn by the complainants.  It was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Other allegations were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, the Ld. Lower Commission allowed the complaint partly as indicated  in the opening para of this order. 

5.               Still dissatisfied with the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellants/complainants  for enhancement of the compensation.

6.                  We have heard Counsel for the parties  and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.                  In the appeal, the grounds taken by the appellants for enhancement of compensation is that the appellants were harassed at the hands of the respondents since the year 2017 and the large sum of money received from them was misappropriated for a period of five years without providing any service at all. Further the future prospect of immigration of the appellant was badly affected due to wastage of such long time by the respondent.  The compensation awarded by the Ld Lower Commission is inadequate in view of the financial loss suffered by the appellants and loss of opportunity of international education due to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that it was the appellants who did not pay the agreed fees and shown their unwillingness  to pursue the case. It was further contended that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite just  and reasonable as the appellants have already received settled amount and no interference in the impugned order is called for.  

8.               It is admitted case of the parties that as per Clause-3 of the Contract of engagement, the appellants/complainants were obliged to pay Rs.4,41,000/- but they did not follow the schedule and made only a part payment. The main plea taken in the complaint is that the  respondents did not take effective steps to process their case for immigration.  It is further case of the appellants that the respondents misled appellant NO.1 by saying that IELTS was not required for PR purpose whereas clearing IELTS exam was also extremely important as it also carried points.  It is for the aspirant seeking immigration to know all the requirements before applying for the same.  The Ld. Lower Commission, in the circumstances of the case, rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation, which appears quite just and reasonable .  During the pendency of this appeal, the respondents paid a sum of Rs.15750/- to the appellants in compliance with the order dated 19.7.2023 passed by the Ld. Lower Commission. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 stands satisfied.

9.                  In view of the above discussion, we find no case made out  to  interfere in  the impugned order  as the amount awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite justified and reasonable.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs and consequently the impugned order is upheld.   

 10.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.