Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/164/2023

MR. GULSHAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S WORLDWIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA

07 Nov 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	164 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	14.07.2023
Date of Decision	:	07.11.2023

 

1]         Sh. Gulshan Kumar S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, House No.104, Sun Shine Avenue, Backside GNDU Campus, Ladhe Wali Road, Jalandhar – 144007.

 

2]         Mrs. Saran Preet w/o Sh. Gulshan Kumar, House No.104, Sun Shine Avenue, Backside GNDU Campus, Ladhe Wali Road, Jalandhar – 144007.

 

……Appellants/Complainants.

V e r s u s

1]       Worldwide  Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.), SCO 2415-16, Near Aroma Hotel, Sector 22C, Chandigarh through its Director.

 

2]       Worldwide  Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.), Head Office: A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali through its Director.

 

3]       M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, C/o Worldwide  Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali through its Director.

…..Respondents/Opposite parties

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

                  

Argued by:- Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Sh. Amandeep, Legal Executive for the respondents.  

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER.

                    This appeal has been filed by the complainants (appellants herein) for enhancement in the relief awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the District Commission) vide order dated 15.05.2023 passed in consumer complaint No.160 of 2019 on the ground that the District Commission after holding the opposite parties (respondents herein) guilty of deficiency in service, stopped short of granting the refund of entire fees and charges paid to the respondents for processing the application of the appellants for immigration. It has further been stated that admittedly the appellants paid total amount of Rs.3,42,000/- to the respondents, which ought to have been ordered to be refunded. It has further been stated that while ordering refund of only Rs.2,38,815/-, the District Commission did not award interest thereon and also did not award any compensation and litigation cost. The appellants also filed their written arguments reiterating identical submissions as made in the appeal.

2.                On the other hand, in their written arguments, the respondents, while reiterating their stand as taken in their written statement filed before the District Commission, added that the respondents from the day one had been provided services to the appellants such as counseling and advising about the immigration category and the immigration procedure to be followed, providing and counseling the client about immigration package and the check list of document, explaining in detail about the documents and the forms that are necessary for filing immigration application, advising and guiding in preparation of documents and forms for himself, spouse and children in proper format as per the requirement of immigration authorities etc. documents such as experience documents, education documents, salary slip etc. It has further been stated that the respondents had duly been performing their part of the contract and there is no deficiency in services on their part at any point of time.

3.                We have heard the parties and have gone through the impugned order, entire record of the case and the written arguments very carefully.

4.                 So far as the contention raised by the appellants that the District Commission awarded refund of Rs.2,38,815/- only and not the full amount of Rs.3,42,000/-, it may be stated here that bare perusal of the record transpires that the District Commission has ordered refund of the amounts of Rs.1,03,050/- paid on 15.04.2016 towards retainer fee (Annexure C-1), $600 equivalent to Rs.41,465/- on 28.09.2016 (Annexure C-5) and Rs.94,300/- on 24.01.2017 (Annexure C-8) towards professional fee, totaling Rs.2,38,815/-. It may be stated here that the amount of Rs.1,03,050/- paid by the appellants also included the amounts of Rs.12,600/- as service tax @14% and Rs.450/- as Swatch Bharat Cess @0.50%. Similarly, the amount of Rs.94,300/- included the amounts of Rs.11,480/- as service tax @14%,  Rs.410/- as Swatch Bharat Cess @0.50% and Rs.410/- as Krishi Kalyan Cess @0.50%. No doubt, these amounts of service tax, Swatch Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess had gone to the government yet the District Commission also ordered refund thereof. Further the claim of the appellants vide Annexure C-7 pertaining to the amounts spent in order to get medical certification from the Medical Council of Canada, cannot be acceded. The appellants have, thus, failed to make out any case of enhancement in the amount ordered to be refunded by the District Commission. Thus, in our concerted view, the District Commission has righty ordered refund of Rs.2,38,815/- only.
5.                 As regards the contention raised that neither any interest nor any compensation or litigation cost has been awarded by the District Commission, it may be stated that the respondents alongwith their written statement filed before the District Commission had placed on record copy of letter dated 10.11.2017, Annexure R-6 received from Canadian High Commission, whereby it was informed that the Express Entry profile of the appellants has expired and has been removed from the Express Entry pool, which was only valid for one year from the date they are originally submitted. It has also come out of the record that the application on behalf of the appellants was re-lodged with updated documents under online Express Entry Pool on 25.11.2018, which was again valid for one year and the appellants were asked to improve his IELTS score with required bands in order to increase his CRS score so that their immigration application could be processed further. However, the appellants could not submit the improved IELTS score and in the meantime, the Express Entry Profile again expired on 25.11.2018 as intimated by the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 25.11.2018, Annexure R-7 and this information was further shared with the appellants vide email dated 27.11.2018, Annexure R-7 Colly. The appellants have not mentioned about these letters in their complaint for the reasons best known to them. However, in the rejoinder filed by complainant No.1, in Para 13, it is mentioned that after recreating the profile on 25.12.2017, CRS score was 418, which again the opposite parties did not mention and hiding from the court. Rather, it were the respondents, who brought these documents on record and therefore, the stand now taken in the rejoinder by the complainants cannot be accepted. We are of the view that there was concealment of factual position on the part of the appellants qua these letters. It is well said that one should come to the court with clean hands. Therefore, in our view, the appellants have adequately been compensated by ordering refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,38,815/- and they are not entitled to any further relief by way of either interest, compensation or litigation costs.  The appeal is thus liable to be dismissed.
6.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
7.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
8.                 File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

07.11 .2023

 

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER