Delhi

North East

CC/20/2021

Mansi Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Nile Migration Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

07 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 20/21

In the matter of:

 

		Mansi Khanna, W/o Sh. Abhinav Kumar (Advocate) R/o A-85, B Dilshad Colony, Delhi 110095		Complainant
		Versus
		M/s Nile Migration Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director/ Managers/ Authorized Representative At: Eros Corporate Tower Level 15, Towers, Nehru Place, Delhi 110019		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		06.02.2021 29.02.2024 07.05.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainantfiled the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that she along with her husband wished to immigrate to Canada and in this regard she contacted Opposite Party. Opposite Party assured the Complainant that they would enable the Complainant to settle in Canada along with her husband and told about some plan which met all the criteria’s of the Complainant and her husband. Complainant stated that she entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party on 23.09.2018 and she paid an amount of Rs. 70,800/- for the same. Complainant stated that Opposite Party handed over a checklist of the documents which were to be filled for processing the case of Complainant. Complainant fulfilled each and every document and submitted the same to the Opposite Party. Thereafter, Opposite Party told the Complainant to get the educational documents verified from World Education Services and IQAS and for the same the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 17,600/- for herself and          Rs. 17,225/- for her husband. Thereafter, all the documents were verified from Canada and the file of the Complainant was ready to be filled for processing of immigration and on 12.02.2019, the file of the Complainant was put in the pool by the Opposite Party for Express entry program in Canada. On 26.03.2019, an Expression of Interest was received by the Complainant from Alberta, Canada and the Opposite Party was under obligation and duty to file all the documents within 30 days of the mail but Opposite Party failed to do the same. On 01.06.2019, again an Expression of Interest was received by the Complainant from Ontario, Canada and the Opposite Party under obligation and duty to file all the documents within 30 days of the mail but Opposite Party failed to do the same. Thereafter, the Complainant again and again contacted the Opposite Party to do all the necessary formalities, but Opposite Party did not pay heed to the same. After that the Authorized Representative of the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that due to their internal fault, they could not file the case of the Complainant within time and due to which Expression of Interest from Alberta and Ontario got expired. Complainant stated that Authorized Representative of the Opposite Party never shared login credentials with the Complainant and always gave surety that the case would be taken care by the expert case officer and he never informed anything about the mail which they received the notification. Complainant stated that the case officer advised the Complainant and her husband to go through the IELTS exam. Complainant and her husband no option left went through IELTS exam and they spent a sum of Rs. 44,000/- for the same. Again several requirements of documents were raised by the Opposite Party and the same was fulfilled by the Complainant and Opposite Party making unreasonable demand of documents. Complainant stated that due to negligence of Opposite Party that opportunity for going to Canada was destroyed. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 70,800/- which was paid to the Opposite Party, Rs. 44,000/- which was spent upon ILETS, Rs. 34,825/- which was spent upon the verification of the education proof and Rs. 5,00,000/- for various losses. Complainant also prayed for litigation expenses.

 

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Opposite Party never assured and promised the Complainant that the Opposite Party would enable the Complainant to settle in Canada along with her husband. It is stated that the Opposite Party is in the business of providing consultancy services for migration/immigration. It was told to the Complainant that she had a good possibility to settle in Canada under India Retainer for skilled worker express entry. It is stated that the Complainant was not a layman and she was well aware of the immigration procedure of Canada. It is stated that an Expression of Interest was received by the Complainant on 26.03.2019 from Alberta Canada. It is stated that Opposite Party was not under any obligation to file the documents within 30 days of the e-mail. It is stated that Opposite Party has requested the Complainant several time to submit all the documents to complete the process of State nomination for Alberta, Canada. It is stated that Complainant did not provide the documents to the Opposite Party. It is stated that on 01.06.2019 an Expression of Interest was received by the Complainant from Ontario, Canada. It is stated that Opposite Party was not under any obligation to file all the documents within 30 days of the e-mail. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her evidence by way of affidavit, wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint. Evidence of the Opposite Party
5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Praveen Ahuja, Ex-Director of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that she along with her husband wanted to immigrate to Canada and for this purpose they approach the Opposite Party for their services as the Opposite Party is engaged and has expertise of more than half decade in the said field. Her case is that the Opposite Party assured her that it will enable the Complainant and her husband to settle in Canada. The Complainant had paid the necessary fee/charges to the Opposite Party for availing its service. Her case is that she received an Expression of Interest on 26.03.2019 from Alberta and the Opposite Party was under obligation to file all the documents within 30 days of the mail but the Opposite Party failed to do so. Her case is that again on 01.06.2019 an Expression of Interest was received by the Complainant from Ontario, Canada and the Opposite Party was under obligation to file all the documents within 30 days but the Opposite Party to do so. Her case is that she contacted the Opposite Party several times to do the necessary formalities but the Opposite Party failed to do so.
7. The case of the Opposite Party is that it provides consultancy services to the clients for immigration/migration. Its case is that it did not ever assure the Complainant that it would enable the Complainant and her husband to settle in Canada. Its case is that the Expression of Interest was received by the Complainant and the Opposite Party was not under any obligation to file the documents. It is also the case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant never submitted the required documents.
8. As discussed above, the case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party assured the Complainant and her husband for their immigration to Canada. Admittedly an agreement was executed between the parties. The perusal of the said agreement does not anywhere mention about the fact that the Opposite Party had assured the Complainant that it would enable the Complainant and her husband to settle in Canada. The other main point raised by the Complainant is that she had received Expression of Interest twice, one from Alberta (Canada) and second from Ontario (Canada) but the Opposite Party did not submit the required documents within time. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that it was not under any obligation to submit documents and it is also its case that the Complainant had never supplied the necessary documents to it. The perusal of the agreement executed between the parties shows that there is no such clause under which the Opposite Party is under obligation to submit the documents to the concerned authority in the Canada.
9. The case of the Opposite Party is that it provides only consultancy services to the client and it never assures the client to get visa etc. for them. Admittedly, an agreement was executed between the parties wherein the role of the Opposite Party has been mentioned. The relevant part of the same is reproduced as under:
10.  

 

Our service is designed to make your Case as strong as possible. We will provide a detailed consultation on your case. This will take place within three working days of you becoming our client. During your consultation Secondary Consultation, your case manager spends as much time as you need to make sure you get all the information and advice you need to fully understand the immigration laws and other factors affecting your case. The secondary consultation would be in line or an extension of primary assessments/consultation provided by your consultant. After this time in line with best practice & DSR us, our services are deemed to have been provided and our fees are payable in full.

 

We will investigate your Immigration history in detail to make sure you have the strongest possible case and hopefully achieve a successful result. During our detailed consultation process, if we find anything that could harm your case or disqualify you from getting your visa, we will offer you the best option available to deal with any problems in your case. Our immigration Experts will do everything they can to make sure your case has a positive result and they will deal with any problem you have.

 

We will let you know if we find any issues during our consultation process that we cannot deal with using extra laws or current immigration policies. We will also look into any other possible solutions.

 

As part of the consultation, your case manager will give you information and advice on all of your documents to make sure you understand what the documents are about and what you have to do. We can tell you in writing about anything we find during the consultation process.”

 

10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
11. Order announced on 07.05.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President