CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.253/2016
Anand Singh.
S/o Late Sh. Jayendra Singh
R/o A-29, Sector 31
NOIDA, U.P.…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.
Through Chairman cum Managing Director
DLF Mezzanine Floor
Savitri Cinema Commercial Complex
Greater Kailash-II
New Delhi.
Lt. Col. B.S Sandhu
Chairman cum Managing Director
M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.
DLF Mezzanine Floor
Savitri Cinema Commercial Complex
Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.
Mr. Devender Sandhu
Senior Director
WWICS Group
DLF Mezzanine Floor
Savitri Cinema Commercial Complex
Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.
-
Senior Director
WWICS Group
DLF Mezzanine Floor
Savtri Cinema Commercial Complex
Greater Kailash-II
New Delhi. …..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-08.08.2016
Date of Order-01.12.2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
- The complaint pertains to deficiency in providing immigration services on the part of OP.
- Facts outlined in complaint: The complainant engaged OP1 in April, 2004 for preparation, submission and processing of immigration for permanent resident Visa for Canada and two contracts dated 27.04.2004 were executed. The first contract was executed between the complainant and OP and the second contract was executed between the complainant and M/S Global Strategic Business Consultancy Company (GSBCC). The complainant alleges that GSBCC is a sister/ associate company of OP1. The complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to OP1 and US $1600 to GSBCC.
- The complainant was intimated by the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 05.11.2004 about the receipt of his application. He was then directed to deposit assessment fee for “Permanent Resident” with the High Commission. He duly deposited the amount requested on 09.02.2009.
- On 24.05.2013, he was informed by the Canadian High Commission about termination of his application due to change in law. It was clarified that the application submitted before February, 2008, were terminated. The complainant received full refund of the processing fees from the said High Commission.
- Thereafter, the complainant approached OP for refund. He was informed that he is not entitled for any refund but GSBCC has approved a refund of $500 US dollar. It is alleged that the application remained pending with the Canadian High Commission for 9 years but OP failed to monitor or pursue the application.
- The complainant alleges that the refund has been denied on account of change in law as provided in the Agreement. The complainant alleges that the refund clause is one sided.
- The complainant prays for refund of the fees paid to OP and GSBCC with interest @18% and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.
- OP1 to OP4 in its reply has taken a preliminary objection that complaint is barred by limitation. The immigration application was terminated vide letter dated 24.05.2013 due to enactment of new legislation called Jobs, Growth And Long Term Prosperity Act on 29.06.2012, whereby all application filed before 27.02.2008 were terminated by operation of law. The complainant received the refund from Citizenship & Immigration, Canada vide demand draft dated 27.10.2013. The complaint was filed on 08.08.2016 which is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- OP submits that a contract was executed on 27.04.2004 with the complainant for preparation, submission and processing of immigration case and Rs.30,000/- was received from the complainant. The application was duly prepared and filed before the Canadian High Commission on 27.07.2004. A file number was allotted by Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 05.11.2004.
- The complainant had engaged the services of GSBCC for pre-landing and post-landing services on payment of US $1600 which is a separate legal entity. It is stated that complainant was not entitled for any refund but the complainant was offered refund of $500 as a goodwill gesture from GSBCC.
- OP has denied refund to the complainant and sent a detailed email in this regard. OP prays for dismissal of complaint.
- Complainant has filed replication. It is submitted that complainant received the refund cheque sent by Canadian Authorities on 03.12.2013. It is further submitted that the cause of action is continuing as OP has not refunded the amount paid by the complainant. It is further submitted that OP finally rejected the claim on 13.05.2016 and this complaint was filed on 08.08.2016 and therefore, the complaint is within time. Complainant has also reiterated the submissions made in the complaint.
- Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following document:
- A copy of company’s profile is exhibited as Ext.CW 1/1.
- A copy of both agreements are exhibited as Ext.CW 1/2.
- A copy of receipt dated 27.4.2004 issued by OP is exhibited as Ext.CW 1/3.
- A copy of temporary receipt issued by M/s WWICS is exhibited as Ext.CW 1/4.
- A copy of receipt dated. 7.6.2004 of payment made to M/s GSBC is exhibited as Ext.CW 1/5.
- A copy of letter dated 5.11.2004 issued by Canadian High Commission is exhibited as Ext.CW 1/6.
- A copy of receipt dated 9.2.2009 issued by Immigration Section is exhibited as Ext.CW 1/7.
- A copy of letter dated 24.5.2013 issued by Canadian High Commission is exhibited as Ext.CW 1/8.
- A copy of emails exchanged between the parties is exhibited as Ext.CW 1/9.
- OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:
- A copy of demand draft dated 27.10.2013 is exhibited as Annexure-Ex.RW-1.
- Copy of complainant’s case filed before Canadian High Commission is exhibited as Annexure-Ex.RW-2.
- Copy of file Number allotted to Complainant by CIC is exhibited as Annexure-Ex.RW-2.
- Copy of judgements are exhibited as Annexure-Ex.RW-4 & 5.
- The Commission has perused the pleadings and material on record. It is admitted by all parties that an Agreement was executed between complainant and OP1 on 27.04.2004 on payment of Rs.30,000/-. It is also admitted that another Agreement was executed between complainant and GBSCC on 27.04.2004 on payment of US $1600. It is undisputed that an application was filed with Canadian High Commission by OP1 in the same year. It is also undisputed that the assessment process was started by the Canadian High Commission and the processing fee was deposited on 09.02.2009.
- It is admitted by the complainant that he was informed of termination of his application by Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 24.05.2013. He also received the refund on 03.12.2013. The complainant requested for refund from OP vide email dated 05.12.2013 but there was no response.
- OP vide email dated 24.05.2014 replied that GSBCC has approved US $500. The complainant wrote another email on 28.07.2015 for refund. OP vide email dated 30.07.2015 stated that the complainant is not entitled for any refund as per the refund clause contained in the Agreement. Multiple emails were exchanged between the parties in the same vein.
- Section 24A(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribes the period for filing of a complaint:
“24A. Limitation Period:
- The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.”
- Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura Vs. Arabinda Chakroborty 2014 (6) SCC 460 has observed that
9. We had heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and had also carefully gone through the relevant material pertaining to appointment orders and the representations made by the respondent.
10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided.
- It is clear from the aforementioned judgment that limitation cannot be extended by correspondence. The cause of action arose on 24.05.2013 when the Canadian High Commission terminated complainant’s application due to change in law. The refund from Canadian High Commission was received on 03.07.2013. The complaint was filed on 08.08.2016. Hence, the present complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act.
- Even on merits, the parties are bound by the clauses in the Agreement duly signed by both the parties. It is admitted that the Agreement was executed in the year 2004 and immigration application was filed in the same year. Due to change in law, all applications before 27.02.2008 were terminated by Canadian High Commission and the processing fee was refunded. The refund clause in the Agreement between the parties states that refund is only applicable to the extent of 50% if the client is unable to achieve the requisite band in four components i.e. speaking, listening, writing and reading or is declared disqualified in the skill assessment. The complaint does not fall within any of the two categories. The Agreement does not provide for refund in case of change in law. There is no deficiency on the part of OP in providing immigration services to the complainant.
- Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
