THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 618-14
Date of Institution : 25.11.2014
Date of Decision : 3.11.2015
Jasbir Singh Vill. Malia, Near PNB Jandiala Road, Post Office Tarn Taran, Amritsar
Mobile 95017 46500 ...Complainant
Vs.
The Managing Director, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Mohali 160055 (Punjab), Phone +91 172 6663600, +91 172 6663700
The Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Old Mohali Road, Sector 56, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Chandigarh 160055
The Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., SCO 112, ICICI Bank Building, District Shopping Centre, MK Hotel Road, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar 143001 Phone 0183 6616200-216
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite parties : Sh. Munish Menon,Advocate
-2-
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Jasbir Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he applied for PR for Canada through opposite party No.1 in December 2003 and opposite party No.1 charged an amount of Rs. 25000/ as registration fee and an additional amount of US $ 800 (amounting to Rs. 49,024/- in Indian Currency) as processing fee which the complainant paid on 31.12.2003 and 23.2.2004 respectively . Complainant has alleged that he visited the opposite party No.1 several times to know the status of his PR case, but opposite party No.1 has always given the false assurances that his case will be approved very soon.Complainant has alleged that as per the agreement between the parties, this amount is refundable in case of rejection of the case of the complainant by the Candian Embassy/Government . In 2014 complainant came to know from Canada Embassy about the closing of PR visa and received the refund of visa processing fee from Canadian Embassy US $991.26 in April 2014 . Then the complainant applied to the opposite party for the refund of the entire amount paid by him to avail visa services. But the complainant was disappointed when opposite party No.2 informed to the complainant that they cannot refund the said amount as the Canadian Embassy has closed all the process. Complainant has alleged that he has spent his hard earned money in availing the services of the opposite parties and the opposite parties have caused the complainant a great deal of mental trauma and harassment. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 74,024/- (Rs.25000/- + Rs.49,024/-) which the complainant had paid against the registration fee and the processing fee to obtain the visa. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that no deficiency could be attributed to the opposite parties as the case of the complainant was terminated on account of change in law by Canadian High Commission and the opposite parties have played their part by preparing the file and submitting the application of the complainant before the Canadian High Commission. It was submitted that the complainant had entered into a separate contract of engagement with M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy Dubai (in short M/s. GSBC) for availing post landing services. As per engagement the amount of US$800 was paid by the complainant directly to M/s. GSBC Dubai which is a separate legal entity vide demand draft No. 036666 dated 17.2.2004 against which receipt was issued to the complainant by said M/s. GSBC Dubai . So the complainant cannot claim this amount from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not liable to refund the said professional fee paid by the complainant to M/s. GSBC Dubai. More over the complainant has not made said M/s. GSBC Dubai as party to the present comdplaint. It was submitted that as per clause 7 of the Contract of Engagement duly signed by the complainant with the opposite parties, the opposite parties shall not be held liable for any delay whatsoever occurring due to the backlog of the cases or for any other reason at the Visa post. The case of the complainant was duly prepared and filed in the best possible manner by the opposite parties with the Canadian High Commission and the same was cancelled by the Canadian High Commission vide their letter dated 23.7.2004 stating that they have received the application of the complainant for permanent residence and have created file number and further that no processing shall occur on the file for approximately 33 months and the same cannot be guaranteed. Thus the oppostie parties have rendered all the services for which the complainant was entitled to so as, to get the case processed by the Canadian High Commission. However, Canadian Government introduced new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act which became law on 29.6.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by the operation of law. Therefore, the opposite parties are nowhere in deficiency of service qua the complainant as they have already performed all the duties which the opposite parties were required as per contract of engagement between the parties. It was submitted that once the complainant had retained the following services, the opposite parties started providing services from day one, even before the case was filed:-
(a) Counseling and advising the client about the immigration category in which he retained the servies and the immigration procedure to be followed.
(b) Providing and counseling the client about immigration package and the check list of documents. Explaining the client in detail about the documents and the forms those are necessary for filing Immigration Application.
(c ) Advising and guidint the client in preparation of documents and forms for himself, spouse and children in proper format as per the requirement of Immigration Authorities etc. Dcouments such as Expericence documents, Education documents, salary slips etc.
Thus the opposite parties had duly performed their part of the contract and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties at any point of time. The visa processing fee of Canadian Dollar 1100 equivalent to US$ 991.26 has already been refunded by the Canadian High Commission to the complainant vide draft dated 25.3.2014 . It was submitted that the Canadian High Commission has changed the Immigration Rules and the application of the complainant has been terminated due to coming into force of a New Act under which all the applications made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by the operation of law by the Canadian High Commission. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9.
4. Opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh.Abhishek Mahajan, Br.Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP11.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties it is clear that complainant applied for PR of Canada through opposite party No.1 in December 2003 and opposite party No.1 charged an amount of Rs. 25000/ as registration fee and an additional amount of US $ 800 (amounting to Rs. 49,024/- in Indian Currency) as processing fee which the complainant paid on 31.12.2003 and 23.2.2004 respectively . The complainant alleges that as per the agreement between the parties, this amount is refundable in case of rejection of the case of the complainant by the Candian Embassy/Government . In 2014 complainant came to know from Canada Embassy about the closing of PR visa and received the refund of visa processing fee from Canadian Embassy US $991.26 in April 2014 Ex.C-6. Then the complainant applied to the opposite party vide letter dated 4.6.2014 Ex.C-7 for the refund of the entire amount paid by him to avail visa services. But the complainant was disappointed when opposite party No.2 informed to the complainant that they cannot refund the said amount as the Canadian Embassy has closed all the process. The complainant also wrote letter dated 19.9.2014 Ex.C-8 to the opposite party for the refund of the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 25000/- and US$ 800 , but the opposite party did not refund these amounts to the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that no deficiency could be attributed to the opposite parties as the case of the complainant was terminated on account of change in law by Canadian High Commission and the opposite parties have played their part by preparing the file and submitting the application of the complainant before the Canadian High Commission. More over , the complainant had entered into a separate contract of engagement with M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy Dubai (in short M/s. GSBC) for availing post landing services,as per contract of engagement Ex.OP2. The amount of US$800 was paid by the complainant directly to M/s. GSBC Dubai which is a separate legal entity who vide demand draft No. 036666 dated 17.2.2004 Ex.OP3 against which receipt Ex.OP4 was issued to the complainant by said M/s. GSBC Dubai . So the complainant cannot claim this amount from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not liable to refund the said professional fee paid by the complainant to M/s. GSBC Dubai. More over the complainant has not made said M/s. GSBC Dubai as party to the present complaint. As per clause 7 of the Contract of Engagement Ex.OP5 duly signed by the complainant with the opposite parties, the opposite parties shall not be held liable for any delay whatsoever occurring due to the backlog of the cases or for any other reason at the Visa post. The case of the complainant was duly prepared and filed in the best possible manner by the opposite parties with the Canadian High Commission and the same was acknowledged by the Canadian High Commission vide their letter dated 23.7.2004 Ex.OP6 stating that they have received the application of the complainant for permanent residence and have created file number and further that no processing shall occur on the file for approximately 33 months and the same cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the oppostie parties have rendered all the services which the complainant was entitled to so as to get the case processed by the Canadian High Commission. However, Canadian Government introduced new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act which became law on 29.6.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by operation of law. Copy of said letter was sent to the complainant by the Canadian Embassy through the opposite parties, Ex.OP7 dated 24.5.2013. Since application of the complainant was received by the Canadian High Commission on 23.7.2004 , his case also stood terminated by operation of law. As such the opposite parties are nowhere in deficiency of service qua the complainant as they have already performed all the duties which the opposite parties were required as per contract of engagement between the parties. The visa processing fee of Canadian Dollar 1100 equivalent to US$ 991.26 has already been refunded by the Canadian High Commission to the complainant vide draft dated 25.3.2014 Ex.OP8. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that the complainant applied for PR of Canada through the opposite parties in December 2003 and opposite party No.1 charged an amount of Rs. 25000/- as registration/processing fee. The case of the complainant was duly prepared and filed by the opposite parties with the Canadian High Commission and the same was acknowledged by the Canadian High Commission vide their letter dated 23.7.2004 Ex.OP6 stating that they have received the application of the complainant for permanent residence and have created file number and further that no processing shall occur on the file for approximately 33 months and the same cannot be guaranteed. All this shows that the opposite parties have rendered all the services for which the complainant was entitled to get, so as to get his case processed by the Canadian High Commission. However, Canadian Government introduced new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act which became law on 29.6.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by operation of law. Copy of said letter was sent to the complainant by the Canadian Embassy through the opposite parties Ex.OP7 dated 24.5.2013 . As the application of the complainant was received by the Canadian High Commission on 23.7.2004, his case also stood terminated by operation of law. As such the opposite parties are nowhere in deficiency of service qua the complainant as they have already performed all the duties which the opposite parties were required to perform as per Contract of Engagement executed between the parties Ex.C-4. As regards refund of fee , clause 9 of the aforesaid contract states that the client shall be entitled to refund of 50% of the retainer fee, if the client is unable to achieve the requisite band in all the four components i.e. speaking,listening, writing and reading despite making two attempts and is still unable to achieve the requisite band. Secondly the client shall be entitled to refund of 50% of the retainer fee, if the client is declared disqualified in the Skills Assessment . Opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of processing/professional fee paid by the client to the company in the event the visa officer rejects client's case and the company is unable to revert such decision by any means. The refund clause of the aforesaid contract of engagement is not applicable if the changes in immigration rules and regulations due to which client would no longer qualify for immigration to the destination country. Here in this case the Canadian Government introduced new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act which became law on 29.6.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by operation of law and the copy of said letter was sent to the complainant by Canadian Embassy through the opposite parties Ex.OP7 dated 24.5.2013 and the case of the complainant stood terminated by operation of law. So it cannot be held that the opposite parties are in deficiency of service qua the complainant. Moreover, the complainant had entered into a separate contract of engagement with M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy Dubai for availing post landing services as per contract of engagement Ex.OP2. The amount of US$800 was paid by the complainant directly to M/s. GSBC Dubai which is a separate legal entity ,vide demand draft dated 17.2.2004 Ex.OP3 against which receipt Ex.OP4 was issued to the complaihnt by said M/s. GSBC Dubai. The complainant has not made the said M/s. GSBC Dubai as party to the present complaint. So the complainant cannot claim this amount from the opposite parties.
9. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission of UT, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 192 of 2014 decided on 3.7.2014 titled as Parwinder Singh Versus WWICS Limited and Others as well as in First Appeal No. 193 of 2014 titled as Kamaljit Kaur Vs.WWICS Limited and Others that the company is liable to refund the professional fee to the client in the event the Visa Officer rejected the client's case and the company was unable to revert such decision by any means which may include Judicial Review Process. But where rejection was due to change in Immigration Rules and Regulations due to which the client would no longer qualify for immigration to the destinaion country, the company is not liable to refund the fee. Similar are the facts of the present case.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant. As such we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
3.11.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
