IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 29th day of December, 2022
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 82/2021 (Filed on 15/04/2021)
Complainant : Vijin Rajan, S/o Rajan, Edasseril House
Peringalippuram P.O, Chengannur- 695 624.
(Adv.Cyriac Simon)
Vs
Opposite party : The Manager, Amster Group,
Immigration Overseas Pvt.Ltd,
3rd floor , Kurch Tower, Kodimatha P.O
Kottayam- 683 013.
(Adv.Jomy Joseph)
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
The Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complaint is that the complainant approached the opposite party for PR in Canada and got assurance that PR would be obtained after submitting the experience certificate of the complainant from warehouse operator dated 07.01.2016 to 30-01-2018. On 31-01-2018 the opposite party demanded the complainant to remit Rs.23,600/- to get PR in Canada. The complainant remitted Rs.23,600/- on the same day to get PR. As the opposite party neglected to get the PR in Canada to the complainant he emailed to them on 10-04-2018 that he was withdrawing his application and demanded to return the registration amount several times but no reply was given. On 31-01-2018 the complainant got a mail from the opposite party stating that they will update once they receive a status but after that nothing was done. Though the complainant visited the opposite party 16 times, there was no response from the opposite party. This is a gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence this complaint is filed for compensation and for return of the amount.
Upon receipt of notice the opposite party appeared and filed version with the following contention: The complaint has been filed suppressing material facts and is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The averments that the opposite party assured PR in Canada on the basis of experience certificate from Warehouse operator as averred by the complainant is not correct. As the complainant approached the opposite party after checking their offers and advertisements he could have known the qualifications which were required for the intending process of PR. The averment that the opposite party demanded to remit Rs.23,600/- for PR in Canada is not correct. The complainant joined in the program of opposite party on 02.02.2018. His service package with the opposite party was for 1.75 lakhs and he paid an advance of Rs.23,600/-. Later it is revealed that his job was listed in the ‘C’ level category and it cannot be forwarded due to the trade work section. The complainant was aware about the required qualifications and therefore, it s only as a process for starting package he paid the nominal advance. Thereafter, the complainant realised that his profile cannot be forwarded due to the particular trade work section. By knowing the fact that his qualification would not suit for PR, and even if processed with, he may not get a positive response in PR procedure, he decided to withdraw from the process. Admittedly, as per the complaint he mailed the opposite party that he is withdrawing his application to get PR. And he also sought return of money.
The allegation that the opposite party neglected to get the permanent residence is false and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has already taken an internal decision to settle the issue amicable but the complainant was demanding the full amount and he was not ready for any kind of amicable settlement. The opposite party had nowhere advertised that the trade qualifications as that of the complainant would be entitled for PR process. The opposite party had already done counselling for the complainant and done initial document processing. Only after all these processes the complainant decided to withdraw from the program. The eligibility on the basis of qualification is not under the control of the opposite party. The opposite party has voluntarily tried to initiate PR process with his available qualification and therefore he paid only the advance amount and the opposite party had not collected any fee from him. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The evidence part of the complaint consists of affidavit in lieu of chief examination of the complainant and the opposite party. The documents from the side of the complainant were marked as Exhibits A1 to A3 and that from the opposite party are marked B1 to B19.
The complainant’s allegation is that he had informed the opposite party that he was withdrawing from the programme and demanded the refund of the registration fee. On the other hand the opposite party contended that they were regularly following up the complainant for submission of required documents but it was the complainant who did not turn up. The opposite party though contended in the version that the complainant did not have the necessary qualification for applying for PR, stated in the proof affidavit that subsequently the complainant came to the qualification as the Canadian Government changed the level of the work experience of the complainant from C to B. But no such pleading is there in the version and no document has been produced in this regard also. Moreover, the opposite party contended that they have processed the application after conducting counselling to the complainant. But for this also there is no evidence. The opposite party has collected Rs.2,500/- as per Exhibit A3 which is unchallenged, for initial assessment. The opposite party was bound to intimate the complainant about the conditions precedent for getting PR in Canada. No such document is produced before us proving that the eligibility criteria were intimated to the complainant.
As the opposite parties have made an initial assessment which is proven by Exhibits B1 to B19, receiving Rs.2,500/- towards this is admissible. Not giving proper assistance to the complainant in getting the PR is a deficiency in their service and hence we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to return the amount of Rs.21,100/- with an interest @ 9% p.a from 10.04.2018 till realisation along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of December, 2022.
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Experience Certificate dated 07/01/2018 issued by Manager, Benefits & Administration Transguard group LLC.
A2- Receipt dated 31/01/2018 issued from Amster Group.
A3- Email dated 15/12/2020.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1- Email dated 02/02/2018 at 10.21 pm
B2- Email dated 06/02/2019 at 3.31 pm
B3- Email dated 10/02/2018 at 5.24 pm
B4- Email dated 13/02/2018 at 2.05 pm
B5- Email dated15/02/2018, at 1.30 pm
B6- Email dated 09/03/2018 at 4.58 pm
B7- Email dated 10/03/2018 at 10.12 pm
B8- Email dated 12/03/2018 at 1.53 pm
B9- Email dated 13/03/2018 at 12.24 pm
B10- Email dated 09/04/2019 at 11.29 am
B11- Email dated 10/04/2018 at 5.12 pm
B12- Email dated 01/05/2018 at 4.29 pm
B13- Email dated 13/06/2019 at 5.28 pm
B14- Email dated 04/12/2019 at 4.45 pm
B15- Email dated 26/04/2019 at 12.26 pm
B16- Email dated 10/01/2020 at 1.01 pm
B17- Email dated 12/03/2020 at 12.24 pm
B18- Email dated 17/05/2020 at 5.20 am
B19- Email dated 28/07/2020 at 10.54 am
By order
sd/-
Assistant Registrar
