Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/309/2017

Vikram Pratap - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s AV Immigration & Careers Consultancy Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Shashank Bhanadari

25 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	309 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	03.04.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	25.01.2018

 

 

 

 

Vikram Pratap s/o Sh.Ashok Gupta, R/o #1144, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.        

             …..Complainant

Versus

M/s A V Immigration & Careers Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., registered Office #B-14 & B-15, 5^th Avenue, Dhole Patil Road, Pune 411001, Maharashtra, India.

                          ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Shashank Bhandari, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh.Harish Chhabra, Adv. for Opposite Party

  

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          The case of the complainant briefly is that he had engaged the services of Opposite Party for immigration. The complainant signed the contract sent by the Opposite Party and along with it, he also paid a fee of Rs.85,124/- to the Opposite Party (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that the complainant remained in touch with Opposite Party through its officials (Ann.C-2).  It is also averred that the complainant was informed by the Opposite Party from the beginning that even though this agreement was for the purpose of immigration to Canada, but he can change the country for immigration as per Clause 29 of the Agreement, according to which the complainant has to pay additional amount of Rs.10,000/- for such change of country. However, the official of Opposite Party namely Ms.Mohini Omble, confirmed that complainant has positive review report for application to Australia, and stated that the case of the complainant would not be pursued for Australia until he pays Rs.35,000/- +Service Tax instead of Rs.10,000/- as claimed in the contract. The complainant resisted to the said demand of the Opposite Party being illegal and beyond the contract, but still his application to Australia was refused by the Opposite Party for an unwarranted and undocumented claim of Rs.35,000/- plus Service Tax. It is submitted that the Opposite Party for its own unwarranted greed is putting the future and career of the complainant on the risk.  Alleging the said act of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed for claim of Rs.2 lacs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum being barred by territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action has accrued in Chandigarh.  It is stated that the complainant had availed the services of Opposite Party on 1.10.2014 when there was no such thing like Expression of Interest, so the claim of the complainant that he had engaged the service of Opposite Party for forwarding EOI (Expression of Interest) is false.  It is also stated that the complainant had retained the Opposite Party for filing of application under FSW category, wherein in Oct., 2014, the Visa application could be submitted directly, but from 1.1.2015, the Govt. of Canada had changed rules and had made it mandatory to first file an EOI and if the EOI is selected for further processing, then the Visa application could be submitted.  It is submitted that the complainant wanted to change the country from Canada to Australia in Aug., 2016, almost 2 years after the original agreement and after when so much significant and substantial work done for his immigration to Canada.  It is also submitted that the Opposite Party could not file the application in 2014, as the complainant did not submit the documents in time.  It is further submitted that the complainant was submitting fake documents and profile as he modified his profile from Chief Operating Officer to Civil Engineer in his application.  It is stated that the complainant is putting blames on the Opposite Party for his own wrongs.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The agreement between M/s A. V. Immigration & Careers Consultancy Pvt. Ltd./OP and Vikram Pratap/Complainant was executed on 1.10.2014 at Pune (Maharashtra) (Ann.C-2 Page/18).  Even the Stamp Paper for the said agreement for the value of Rs.10/- was purchased from Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Ann.OP-1 Page 10). As per Board Resolution, annexed with the written reply of OP at Page 9, the Opposite Party has its Head Office at #A-6/7, 5^th Avenue Building, Dhole Patil Road, Pune and have its Branch Offices only at Pune, Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Australia, Bengaluru, Baroda, Hyderabad and Canada. 

 

7]       No cause of action wholly or in part arose to the complainant at Chandigarh in the present matter. Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under:-

11.        Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—

(1)      xxxxx

(2)      A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)  the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 

 

8]       Keeping into consideration the facts in issue in the present complaint and provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ibid, the complaint filed by the complainant before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT, Chandigarh, is not maintainable due lack of territorial jurisdiction and as such is dismissed.

         The complainant shall, be at liberty, to approach the appropriate Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the time spent herein would stand commuted/condoned for the purpose of limitation.

 

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th January, 2018                                                       

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER