BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.59 of 2015

Date of Instt. 23.02.2015

Date of Decision :03.08.2015

Rajinder Singh aged about 29 years son of Sumitter Singh R/o VPO Kurala Kalan, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Life Force Technology Private Limited, Head Office:- SCO-2,l Near ICICI Bank, Chotti Baradari, Phase-1, Garha Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director/Partner/Manager.

2. Ms.Preeti Singh C/o M/s Life Force Technology Private Limited, Head Office:- SCO-2,l Near ICICI Bank, Chotti Baradari, Phase-1, Garha Road, Jalandhar

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.DDS Nayyar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.VB Mehta Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant was interested to go to Canada/Manitoba to earn his livelihood in the plumber trade and looking into the good reputation of the opposite party No.1, approached it, in the month of September 2013, for arranging the visa/work permit for him for Canada/Manitoba in plumber trade. On scrutiny of his qualification and experience certificates, the opposite parties assured him that they will certainly arrange visa/work permit of Canada/Monitoba for the complainant in plumber trade within six months and for that purpose, the opposite parties told the complainant that they will charge a total sum of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant for doing all this work. The opposite parties further assured the complainant that in case they failed to arrange visa/work permit for the complainant for Canada/Monitoba, they will return the complete amount, without any deductions, so received by them from the complainant. Accordingly believing upon the representations of the opposite parties, the complainant entered into the consultancy agreement with the opposite party No.1 on 26.9.2013 at Jalandhar on which the complainant as well as opposite party No.2, on behalf of opposite party No.1, signed the same. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the same day i.e 26.9.2013 vide receipt No.437 of the even date. The opposite party No.2, on behalf of opposite party No.1, also issued a certificate on the same day when she received an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant. The opposite parties further mentioned on the said certificate that the received amount is totally refundable in case of rejection or case not successful within four months. The opposite parties requisitioned various documents from the complainant like voter card, driving licence, PAN card, police clearance certificate, electricity/telephone bill, ration card, bank statement of account, LIC policy, CA report, birth certificate, property valuation certificate, 10th, 10+2 degrees and ITI certificates, copy of passport etc. Thereafter the complainant completed all the requisite formalities and requisite documents were submitted to the opposite parties, as was advised by them. Thereafter in the month of November 2013, the opposite parties told the complainant that the visa fee and other miscellaneous charges for Canada/Monitoba have been increased and the complainant will now have to pay a total sum of Rs.98,000/- instead of Rs.75,000/-. That believing upon the opposite parties, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 11.11.2013 vide receipt No.446, Rs.20,000/- on 8.1.2014 vide receipt No.474 and Rs.13,000/- on 16.1.2014 vide receipt No.477. Thus the complainant, in total, paid a sum of Rs.98,000/- to the opposite parties for the work permit/visa for Canada/Monitoba. In the month of February and March 2014, the opposite parties again called for more documentation from the complainant, which the complainant again completed the formalities and supplied the requisite documents to the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant had been regularly approaching the opposite parties for arranging the visa/work permit for him, but the opposite parties had been putting him off regularly on one pretext or the other. Till now the opposite parties have failed to arrange work permit/visa for the complainant, although excess amount also has been charged and received by them. Thereafter, in the month of November, 2014, the complainant asked the opposite parties to return the said amount of Rs.98,000/- so received by them for arranging work permit visa for Canada/Monitoba, but again they did not pay heed to his genuine request. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund him Rs.98,000/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant approached the opposite parties for providing consultancy service by way of receiving advice, assistance and guidance and preparation of his case file for going to Canada/Monitoba Visa by the concerned embassy. The opposite parties entered into a written agreement, which was executed on 26.9.2013. The complainant signed agreement after going through the terms and conditions of the agreement. The amount was charged as per the terms of the agreement, it is incorrect that the opposite parties undertook to return the payment without deduction. To grant visa or not to grant visa is purely the discretion of visa officer of the Canadian Embassy. The opposite parties has got nothing to do the same. The opposite parties were engaged to provide the consultancy service and for preparing file of the complainant. The opposite parties charged fee of Rs.75,000/- for the same and the same is not returnable to the complainant. As per the clause 12 of the agreement, the dispute between the parties is to be decided by the Arbitrator to be appointed by consent of both the parties. The provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act are fully applicable to the present complaint. Receipt of Rs.50,000/- is forged and fabricated and is not signed by the opposite party No.2. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. So far as, arbitration clause in the agreement Ex.C1 is concerned, it in no way oust the jurisdiction of this Forum. The remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. So objection of the opposite parties in this regard is without any merit. In preliminary objection No.4, the opposite parties have stated that receipt of Rs.50,000/- is forged and fabricated and is not signed by the opposite parties. In para 5 of the written reply on merits, the opposite parties have admitted that they charged fee of Rs.75,000/-. According to the complainant, in all, he had paid Rs.98,000/- to the opposite parties. Ex.C2 is receipt dated 26.9.2013 for Rs.50,000/-, Ex.C4 is receipt dated 11.11.2013 for Rs.15,000/-, Ex.C5 is receipt dated 8.1.2014 for Rs.20,000/- and Ex.C6 is receipt dated 16.1.2014 for Rs.13,000/-. The total of all these receipts comes to Rs.98,000/-. In case the receipt of Rs.50,000/- is forged then it means that the opposite parties only received Rs.48,000/- from the complainant but in their written reply, they have admitted to have charged Rs.75,000/- from the complainant. So this fact falsify the version of the opposite parties that receipt dated 26.9.2013 for Rs.50,000/- is forged one. Moreover, there is no reliable evidence on record to prove this fact. The complainant has produced certificate Ex.C3 issued by the opposite party No.2 on behalf of opposite party No.1 wherein it is mentioned as under:-

"I Preeti Singh, on behalf of Life Force Technology Pvt Ltd have received an amount of Rs.50,000/-, out of Rs.75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand) from Mr./Mrs./Miss Rajinder Singh on account of Canada Visa.

The received amount is totally refundable in case of rejection or case not successful within four months".

7. So vide certificate/letter Ex.C3, the opposite parties undertook to refund Rs.75,000/- in case of rejection of case of the complainant or same being not successful within four months. No visa was arranged by the opposite parties for the complainant. It appears that in fact the opposite parties did not pursue the case of the complainant at all. From the side of opposite parties only affidavit Ex.OPA of one Harry has been tendered. The opposite parties have not produced the copy of any application, letter or any other document to show that they even prepared the case of the complainant or sent the same to the Canadian Embassy. They have even not produced any letter asking the complainant to submit any document. They have also not produced any letter to show that Visa was rejected by Canadian Embassy. It appears that opposite parties did nothing to pursue the case of the complainant. It constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Moreover, as per certificate/letter Ex.C3, the opposite parties are bound to refund the amount received from the complainant.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.98,000/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of receipt of respective amounts till the date of payment. It is clarified that interest amount is being granted by way of compensation. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

03.08.2015 Member Member President