Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/24/2017

Gurbinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Pal Sharma

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/24/2017
Date of Institution	:	09/01/2017
Date of Decision	:	13/11/2017

 

Gurbinder Singh son of Sh. Sucha Singh resident of House No.633, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., A-31/A, 3^rd Floor, New Raja Garden Flyover, Above : Tamaha Show Room, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., South East Asia Operations, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali)-170055 through its Branch Manager.

3.     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Narinder Pal Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for OPs

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that lured by the advertisement of the OPs in various newspapers regarding immigration, PR on the basis of sponsorship and providing jobs abroad, the complainant contacted them. The representatives of the OPs after perusing the documents and qualifications and experience/ profile of the complainant, gave an assurance that they would secure two affidavits of support from province of Manitoba/sponsorship for him and send him to Mani-Toba (Canada) on PR basis. On the assurance given by the OPs, the complainant entered into 4 agreements with the OPs which were executed on 26.9.2012 and as per demand of the OPs, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,74,158/- vide cheque dated 26.9.2012.  After a month, the OPs again asked the complainant to make further payment of 5700 US dollars in the shape of bank draft in favour of their business associate M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy which was made by him.  On receipt of the bank draft, the OPs prepared file and promised the complainant that he would get immigration on PR basis hopefully within a year, but, nothing was done. Accordingly, the complainant vide letters dated 5.9.2016 and 15.10.2016 requested the OPs for refund of the amounts paid by him, but, to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written statement have not disputed the factual matrix of the case. It has been denied that any assurance was given to the complainant as alleged by him.   It has been averred that the OP company only provides professional services with respect to the preparation and submission of immigration case on behalf of the complainant and the grant of Visa is purely in the domain of the Canadian High Commission and the OPs have no control over of the same.  It has been contended that after engaging the professional services, the documents provided by the complainant were forwarded to M/s GSBC, Dubai and the complainant was under an obligation to complete certain formalities and also submit the Visa fee, but, he failed to discharge his duties. As such, the complainant’s case could not be filed before the competent authority and as per refund clause of the contract of engagements, he is not entitled to any refund.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         The case of the complainant is that he entered into  four agreements (Annexure C-1 to C-4) through OPs which all were executed on 26.9.2012 and, as per demand of the OPs, deposited a sum of Rs.1,74,158/- vide cheque on the same date.  Again after a month, the complainant paid US $ 5700 in the shape of bank draft in favour of M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy (GSBC) on asking of the OPs. The OPs, after receiving the total fee, promised and assured the complainant that he would get immigration on PR basis within a year for Canada, but, till date nothing has been done and thereafter on 5.9.2016 and 15.10.2016, the complainant himself requested the OPs for the refund of the amount paid by him, therefore, he is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
7.         The stand taken by the OPs is that after engaging the professional services, the documents provided by the complainant were forwarded to M/s GSBC, Dubai and the complainant was under an obligation to complete certain formalities and also to submit the visa fee, but, the complainant himself failed to discharge his duties, therefore, the case of the complainant could not be filed before the competent authority and further it has been contended that there is no clause according to which the complainant is entitled for any kind of refund.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
8.         At the outset, the OPs have taken the objection that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. M/s GSBC, but, it is important to note that it were the OPs who unnecessarily involved the complainant into agreements with unknown party for their own selfish motives.  The complainant at no stage could interact with M/s GSBC to whom a huge amount of US $ 5700 was paid only after the advice of the OPs as the complainant was nowhere in touch with this unknown party.  Hence, the plea taken by the OPs that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party is not sustainable and the liability, if any, lies with OPs only who directly were in contact with the complainant for deposit of fee or for pursuing the matter with the immigration agency abroad.
9.         So far as the allegation of the OPs regarding non submission of the required documents and visa fee is concerned, no evidence to that effect has been placed on record by the OPs to prove the same. Rather in their written statement, OPs have admitted that they failed to file the complainant’s case before the competent authority. Moreover, there is no document on record which proves that at any stage the OPs discharged their part of duties as mentioned in various agreements.  We are of the opinion that it was the duty of the OPs to assess the complainant according to the information provided by him in the assessment form and later to assist him in preparation of the case, but, in the present case, no such effort was made by the OPs.  Undoubtedly, the complainant hired the services of the OPs for processing his case to settle abroad, but, it is also a matter of fact that the OPs retained and used the huge amount deposited by the complainant for a long period of time.  We feel that no one can estimate the pain and agony of a person who could not get the desired destination, as in the present case, which was the ultimate dream of the complainant. Even after spending a huge amount, the complainant had to face failure of his attempt to settle abroad.  Hence, the act of the OPs in handling the case of the complainant in a negligent and careless manner and later on non-refunding, rather retaining, the money of the complainant for a long period and thereby forcing him to indulge into the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  OPs are directed :-

(i)     To refund the amounts of Rs.1,74,158/- and US $ 5700 to the complainant deposited by him.

(ii)    To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

(iii)   To also pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they 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.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/11/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member