Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/114/2020

Vinod Kumar Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms/ More Visa Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Arya & Rakesh Kumar

23 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/114/2020
Date of Institution	:	28/02/2020
Date of Decision	:	23/09/2021

 

Vinod Kumar Bhatia aged 31 years s/o Jagdish Chand r/o House No.4731/2, Sector 70, Phase 7, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s More Visa Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Director(s), Address : Office No.1259/A, 1^st Floor Road No.36, Jubilee Hills Land Mark – Below Eat India Company Restaurant Hyderabad – 500033 Telangana
2. M/s More Visa Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorized Officer/Agent, Local Office Address:- Chandigarh Harmony, Level 4, Tower A, Godrej Eternia, Plot Number-70, Industrial Area Phase I, Chandigarh 160002 [Deleted vide order dated 14.1.2021]

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Atul Arya, Counsel for complainant
	:	OP-1 ex-parte.

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      Allegations in brief are, the complainant intended to immigrate to Canada as early as possible and become permanent resident there.  In June, 2017 after going through advertisement of the OPs, the complainant approached them and apprised them about his intentions.  On 23.9.2017 an agreement of services was signed between the complainant and the OPs for total consideration of ₹50,000/- excluding PRR fees, but, as per the complainant he paid ₹71,180/-. On 17.2.2018, OPs sent a pre-registration report intimating profile of the complainant was positive for Canada Express Entry under Federal Skilled Worker program (FSW).  As per OPs, complainant secured 67 out of 100 under FSW and 971 out of 1200 points under Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS).  The case of the complainant is that he obtained only 371 points under CRS and OPs added 600 points which were in case of any nomination by Province or Arranged Employment. The OPs informed the complainant that the application would be submitted under Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) to obtain more points, but, did not disclose that it would long time, even years. The OPs submitted the profile through application on 12.4.2018 and application under PNP was submitted at the province of Edward Island on 4.6.2018, but, no Invitation To Apply (ITA) was received by the complainant. The complainant became suspicious and when he checked the status, he was surprised that the application expired on 21.2.2019. When the complainant confronted the OPs, he was told that the application would be again submitted on 21.3.2019.  However, again the OPs did not check the processing of the application and when the complainant checked, he found the application again got expired on 21.9.2019. Averred, OPs were duty bound under the agreement to guide the complainant properly and provide correct services.  In fact upon enquiry the complainant came to know that he was not at all eligible to receive any ITA, but, the OPs in order to deceive him stated that his profile was positive. Since the OPs failed to fulfil their part of agreement, the complainant requested for refund, but, the same was declined by the OPs vide letter dated 16.11.2019. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     Registered notice sent to OP-1 was returned with the report unclaimed which tantamount to refusal.  Since refusal is valid service and none appeared on its behalf, therefore, vide order dated 5.11.2020, OP-1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     In view of the application of the complainant, name of OP-2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 14.1.2021 of this Commission.
4.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments.
6.     It has been urged that the complainant with a view to immigrate to Canada and become permanent resident there, approached the OPs.  Annexure C-2 is a copy of the agreement dated 23.9.2017/27.02.2018 executed between the complainant and OPs whereby the OPs agreed to provide various services, as mentioned therein, against total consideration of ₹50,000/-. As per the complainant, actually he had paid ₹71,180/- including the PRR fees, taxes and other miscellaneous charges. It has been further urged that the OP on 17.2.2018 informed that the profile of the complainant was positive for Canada Express Entry under Federal Skilled Worker program (FSW) and he secured 67 out of 100 under FSW and 971 out of 1200 points under Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) whereas as per complainant, he obtained only 371 points under CRS and OP wrongly added 600 points which were in case of nomination by Province or Arranged Employment. It has been further urged that as per the website of Government of Canada, the actual points required by a candidate were 451 and the complainant was ineligible to receive any Invitation to Apply (ITA) as he had secured only 371 points.  It has been further urged that the OPs were duty bound under the agreement dated 23.9.2017 to guide the complainant properly and provide correct services, but, they failed to do so and did not apprise the complainant that his profile would only be positive if he applied under PNP and also did not inform that it can take years for the application to be processed and in case the application under PNP gets expired, the applicant need to pay every time for its resubmission. It has been argued that the OPs with a view to deceive the complainant and take more money, twice wrongly submitted his application under PNP category, though he did not have any provincial nomination, but, failed to keep a check at the processing due to which the applications expired on 21.2.2019 and 21.9.2019 and caused immense mental and physical harassment to him. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his contentions.
7.     In order to rebut the allegations of the complainant, OP-1 was required to file its written reply alongwith some cogent evidence. However, what to talk of rebutting the allegations, OP-1 even refused to take notice of the consumer complaint sent by this Commission and chose to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of OP-1 draws an adverse inference against it and proves that OP-1 has nothing to say in its defence qua the allegations made by the complainant. Hence, in the absence of anything to the contrary, the allegations of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.     It is worth mentioning here that the companies/persons providing immigration services like the present OP, while taking money from their prospective consumers/clients, paint a very rosy picture, proclaim themselves as experts in the field and assure to do the needful, but, when the time comes to fulfilling those assurances, they try to pass on the buck on the shoulders of someone else or try to take refuge under some self serving clause of the agreement, which is highly despicable. In our opinion, failure of OP-1 to provide proper services and wrongly processing the application of the complainant, despite him being not eligible in the said category, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
9.     As far as deposit of the amount by the complainant is concerned, as per email dated 27.2.2018 (Annexure C-9) as well as entry in the bank statement (Annexure C-10), OP-1 admitted the receipt of ₹59,000/- from him. No doubt the complainant has alleged that he had paid further amounts of ₹12,100/- on 18.12.2017 and ₹16,435.26 on 12.1.2018 to the OP, but, perusal of the bank statement (Annexure C-10) clearly shows that the same were not credited with the OP, therefore, the OP cannot be ordered to refund the same to the complainant. Thus, OP-1 is liable to refund the amount of ₹59,000/- charged as service fee to the complainant.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP-1 is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹59,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 27.02.2018 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by OP-1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/09/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	Member	President