BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.154 of 2015
Date of institution: 07.04.2015
Date of Decision: 28.01.2016
Rupinderjit Kaur wife of Kamaljit Singh resident of H.No.74, Ward No.11, Zirakpur, District Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Lt. Colonel B.S. Sandhu, World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), South East Asia Operations, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali 160055.
2. Neha Bhatia (Employee) of World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), South East Asia Operations, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali 160055.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Sukhjit Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri K.S. Rupal, counsel for the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) to refund her the fees alongwith interest @ 9%.
(b) to pay her compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs for providing deficient services and causing mental agony and harassment.
The case of the complainant is that she alongwith her husband and father in law met the OPs for settling abroad and on demand she submitted copies of certificates of her qualification and work experience. After that on call from the OPs, the complainant alongwith her family members visited the OPs and then the OPs informed her that she is fully eligible under general skilled migration to Australia and gave 100% assurance that the case of the complainant would be cleared within four months. On this assurance of the OPs the complainant deposited the fee vide cheques fee of Rs.67,416/-, AUS $ 710 and Rs.39326/- on 22.05.2014, 06.06.2014 and 03.06.2014 with the OPs. Thereafter the OPs applied the case of the complainant to Vetassess for skilled migration and copy of contract of engagement STN State Territory was given by the OPs to the complainant. However, the case of the complainant was rejected by the Vetassess with the objection that she is not possessing the required qualification for the entry to the occupation applied. The complainant approached the OPs but the OPs could not give justifiable answer/reason regarding rejection of the case of the complainant. The complainant came to know that her case was rejected due to the reason that the OPs have not applied her case as per her qualifications. The complainant number of times requested the OPs to either return her fee or process her case. Inspite of issuance of legal notice dated 23.12.2014, the OPs have not taken any action. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. The OPs in the preliminary objections of the written statement have pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of Clause 11 of the Contract of Engagement dated 22.05.2014. The complainant paid Rs.95,000/- for processing her case for migration to Australia as Micro Biologist on 23.05.2015. The documents received from the complainant were duly sent to Vetassess, however, a negative skill assessment was received from Vetassess on 30.08.2014. A review was filed before the Vetassess with a request to give explanation for negative skill assessment. The Vetassess vide e-mail dated 22.09.2014 gave detailed reasons for negative outcome and also advised for re-assessment with changed nominated occupation. However, rather than getting re-assessment, the complainant filed refund letter dated 15.10.2014 which was processed as per Clause 11 of the Contract. As per Clause 11 of agreement, in case of disqualification, the OP would refund the amount after deducting Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly an amount of Rs.45,000/- is being paid to the complainant vide cheque No.457779 dated 02.06.2015. The OPs have already performed their part of the contract by filing case of the complainant before Vetassess for skill assessment. Further the OPs have even filed review application. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on its part. The complainant had paid AUD 710 towards fee of Vetassess which is non refundable and cannot be claimed from the OPs. Out of Rs.67,416/- an amount of Rs.7416/-, and out of Rs.39,326/- an amount of Rs.4326/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant which is totally non refundable as the same has gone to the Govt. Thus, these amounts also cannot be claimed from the OPs. As per Clause 18 of the Contract dated 22.05.2014 all the differences and disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the company. Thus this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. On merits also the OPs have taken the same stand as has been pleaded in the preliminary objections. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1, and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-5.
4. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj, their authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-7.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments filed by them.
6. The complainant is a degree holder in B.Sc. (Bio Technology) and was working as Lab. Technician with Micro Biology Lab as per Ex.C-1 and availed the services of the OPs for immigration to Australia as Micro Biologist under general skilled migration. The OPs gave full assurance to the complainant that her case would be cleared within four months. Therefore, the complainant deposited Rs.67,416/-, 710 AUD and Rs.39,326/- on 22.05.2014, 06.06.2014 and 03.06.2014 respectively with the OPs against due receipts. The complainant has signed the contract for engagement dated 22.05.2014 Ex.C-3, believing the expert advice of the OPs and expecting help from the OPs in getting the process completed for the said purpose. As per the complainant the OPs have sent her case to the Vetasses after charging 710 AUD towards fee for assessment of her eligibility. The complainant was not found eligible. Thereafter, the OPs have approached the authorities for review and the review was also not in favour of the complainant. Besides giving the detailed reason for the negative outcome, the Vetasses authorities advised for re-assessment with changed nominated occupation. The complainant approached the OPs for refund of the amount as the OPs have failed at the initial stage to assess and screen her qualification and the experience certificates deposited to ascertain their suitability for the occupation applied. Secondly as per the complainant her case was rejected due to the reasons that the OPs have not applied her case as per her qualifications.
7. The payment of various amounts is admitted. The submission of documents and the process for screening of documents and submission of documents for skill assessment before the Vetasses has been initiated by the OPs. But the payment of skill assessment fee has been made by the complainant on the asking of the OPs. The complainant has no direct concern with the said skill assessment authority. As per the contract for engagement Ex.C-3, the duties of the OPs are as follows:
(a) Assess the client according to the information provided by the client in his assessment form.
(b) Assist the client in preparation of his/her immigration case;
(c) Review and identify submission of required documents and supporting evidences;
(d) Submit the complete case with supporting documentation and evidence along with the submission report to the respective Skill Assessment Body/State or Territory Authorities/Processing Visa Office on the receipt of all requisite documents from the client.
(e) Handle all correspondence with the respective Skill Assessment Body/State or Territory Authorities/visa Office pertaining to client’s case;
(f) Intimate the requirements sent by Skill Assessment Body/State or Territory Authorities/Processing visa office during the progress of the immigration case.
(g) Assist the client in keeping his/her file upto date;
(h) Advice the client about any subsequent changes in the immigration laws and any subsequent conditions applicable to meet the selection criteria.
8. It is ample clear that at the very outset the OPs have to assess the client according to the information provided by the client in his assessment form. As per the complainant, she has submitted her degree of Bio Technology with the job experience of Lab. Technician with Micro Biology Lab. The OPs being in the field of immigration consultancy service are well equipped and experienced to assess the relevancy of the educational qualification and the experience to the job applied i.e. Micro Biologist for immigration purposes to Australia under the skilled category. The OPs have failed in their duty at the initial stage itself and rather mechanically without application of mind sent her documents with the skill assessment authority i.e. Vetasses which has given a negative report on the ground that the complainant having studied major in bio technology was not relevant to the nominated occupation of Micro Biologist. The complainant has not hidden any information from the OPs and it was the OPs who would have not properly assessed her qualification and the experience before that. Therefore, the OPs have failed in their vital duty as per terms of the agreement. Thus, not adhering to the proper standards of scrutiny it was the onerous duty of the OPs and thus the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice by getting negative assessment from Vetasses authorities for which the complainant has unnecessary been made to shell out 710 AUD.
9. The OPs have admitted having sent the case of the complainant to Vetasses for skill assessment report and even filed the review once the report was found negative but submission of documents for skill assessment with Vetasses and subsequent filing of review appears to be a sham exercise once the OPs know very well that the complainant was not holding proper educational qualification relevant to the nominated occupation. By doing so, the OPs have further fleeced the complainant by payment of fee of 710 AUD. Thus, it is ample clear that the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. We are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated for pain and suffering.
10. In view of above discussion, the complaint is hereby allowed against with the following directions to the OPs;
(a) to refund to the complainant Rs.67,416/-; AUD 710 and Rs.39,326/- alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 22.05.2014, 03.06.2014 and 06.06.2014 respectively till actual payment.
(b) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
January 28, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
