Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/556/2021

Amit Talwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Future Developers immigration Consultant - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Devinder Kumar

24 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	556 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	24.08.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	24.02.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Amit Talwar son of Sh.Prem Talwar, aged about 36 years, resident of House No.1309, Sector 48-B, Silver Tone Society, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s Future Developers Immigration Consultant, SCO No.91-92-93, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner

 

    ….. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING  MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

For Complainant : Sh.Deviner Kumar, Advocate

For OPs         : Opposite Party exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         The case in brief is that the complainant hired the services of OP for getting ‘Work Permit Visa’ for Dubai whereupon the OP informed that the total package for the said services amounts toRs.1,40,000/- with assurance that within a week or two, they will provide the work visa to the complainant.  Accordingly, the complainant, relied upon the assurance of OP, paid an amount of Rs.5000/- to OP through ATM Card of his mother Madhu Talwar    (Ann.C-1).  Apart from this, the complainant also handed over documents to the OP i.e. Original Mark Sheet of 10^th & 10+2, Original Degree and Mark Sheet of B-Tech, Original Pan Card and Original Passport.  Thereafter, a Retainer Agreement was executed between the complainant and OP and OP also obtained the signature of complainant on one work Permit Form   (Ann.C-2 to C-4).  It is submitted that despite passing two months period, nothing was done by OP and when complainant requested the OP to return his documents as well as amount, whereupon the OP returned only original mark sheets and degree but did not return the original passport and amount.  It is averred that the OP instead demanded Rs.80,000/- for return of original passport for which a complaint before The SHO, Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh on 5.7.2021 as well as S.S.P., Chandigarh on 19.7.2021 (Ann.C-5 & C-6) was made.  It is also submitted that the OP has collected the original passport from complainant with malafide intention and with the same intention has not refunded the amount.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       The OP did not turn up despite service of notice on 6.9.2021, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 12.11.2021. 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       The whole evidence placed on record by the complainant corroborates the assertions set out in the present complaint. Ann.C-1 is the Statement of Account proving the payment of Rs.5000/- to OP.  Ann.C-2 is the Retainer Agreement executed between the complainant and OP. Ann.C-3 is the Work Permit Form of OP duly signed by the complainant and OP. Ann.C-4 is the copy of passport of complainant.  Ann.C-5 to C-7 are the complaints made by complainant to the Police Authorities.   

 

6]       The complainant has duly proved the case by way of corroborative evidence and also filed duly sworn affidavit in support of the allegations set-out in the complaint, which goes unrebutted and unopposed in the absence of Opposite Party.

7]       It has also been observed that the OP did not come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint despite being duly served also through publication, which raised a reasonable presumption that the Opposite Party remained deficient in service and also resorted to unfair trade practice and it has nothing to contradict meaning thereby that it duly admit the claim of the complainant.   

8]       It is worth noting that at the time of arguments, the complainant stated that by the efforts of police authority he has received his original passport from Opposite Party. 

9]       From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by the OP has been proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party as under:-

a)  To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/-.

b)  To pay compensation amount of Rs.7000/- to the complainant for causing him immense mental agony and harassment, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.6000/-.

 

       This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/-.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.   

Announced

24^th February, 2022                                                                          Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER