Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/177/2015

Parminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Manmohan

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                       

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/177/2015
Date of Institution	:	20/03/2015
Date of Decision	:	10/02/2016

 

Parminder Singh s/o Sh. Surinder Singh r/o Village Tagon P.O. Tira Tehsil Kharar Distt. SAS Nagar Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Office Address : SCO 2415-16, Sector 22, Chandigarh through Managing Director.

2.     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Office Address : A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali through its Manager.

3.     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Address : A-31/A, 3^rd Floor, Near Raja Garden Flyover, Above Yamaha Showroom, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi through its Manager.

4.     M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Office :-FZCO, Office No.315-16, West Wing-3 Dubai (UAE) through M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Office Address : SCO 2415-16, Sector 22, Chandigarh through Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

               

For complainant	:	Sh. Manmohan, Advocate
For OPs	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Parminder Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he wanted a better job opportunity in Canada for his better future prospect for which he visited the office of OP-1.  As per advice of OP-1, the complainant applied his case in Quebec Skilled Worker Category on 31.10.2012. OPs 1 to 3 prepared first contract.  On 31.10.2012, separate contracts of engagement (Annexure C-1 & C-2) were signed and executed between complainant and OPs 1 to 3 and complainant and OP-4 respectively and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.84,720/- to the OPs on 31.10.2012 as per Annexure C-3. However, there was no response and positive development regarding job offer. Thereafter, OP-1 advised the complainant to apply his second case in Federal Skilled Trades Program on 25.1.2013. OPs 1 to 3 prepared the second contract.  On 25.1.2013, separate contracts of engagement (Annexure C-5 & C-6) were signed and executed between complainant and OPs 1 to 3 and complainant and OP-4 respectively and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,68,540/- to the OPs on 25.1.2013 vide Annexure C-7. According to the second contract with OP-4 an amount of $ 4000 US dollar was to be paid and after discount of $ 200, the complainant paid $3800 to it vide pay order dated 8.3.2013 (Annexure C-9 Colly.).  The complainant has averred that despite making total payment of Rs.4,67,533/- and sending emails, OPs failed to do anything. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         In their written reply, OPs have averred that the complainant had submitted assessment form dated 24.10.2012 and had entered into two contracts of engagement dated 31.10.2012 with M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy services Ltd. and the second with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy with respect to preparation, submission and processing of application for grant of Quebec Selection Certificate.  However, as per clause 2 of the contract of engagement, the complainant failed to submit the complete case filing documents within 45 days, despite a number of reminders/calls. Finally the complainant approached the OPs and informed that he was not interested for pursuing his application for Quebec Skilled Worker Category and requested that the same may be dropped and accepted the condition of non-refund of professional fee. It has been contended that the complainant entered into a fresh contract of engagement dated 25.1.2013 with regard to preparation and submission of documents to M/s GSBC, Dubai under Federal Skilled Trades Program and paid the professional fee of Rs.1,50,000/- and also paid US $ 3800 in accordance with the contract.  It has been pleaded that the complainant was not eligible for any refunds, but, he was refunded an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- vide cheque dated 6.6.2015. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.  
5.         The case of the complainant is that he hired the services of the OPs for immigration to Canada under Quebec skilled worker category for settling abroad and paid the requisite fee of Rs.84,720/- on 31.10.2012 as per Annexure C-3, but, the OPs for a long time did not revert to the complainant regarding the job offer. As per the case of the complainant, in such scenario the OPs advised him to change his case to federal skilled trade programme and accordingly the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,68,540/- on 25.1.2013 vide Annexure C-7.  Further, an amount of US $ 3800 was also paid to OP-4 vide pay order dated 8.3.2013 (Annexure C-9 Colly.). Annexure C-11 and C-12 are the emails sent by the OPs to the complainant with an indication to provide him job offer very shortly. Annexure C-13 is the email dated 21.12.2014 by the complainant to the OPs for the refund. 
6.         The stand taken by the OPs is that the case of the complainant could not proceed further due to non-submission of the required documents within the prescribed time. During the pendency of the present case, the OPs refunded an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- to the complainant vide cheque dated 6.6.2015 and stated that they had refunded the entire refundable amount to the complainant.
7.         So far as the allegation of the OPs regarding the non-submission of the required documents is concerned, no evidence to that effect has been placed on record by the OPs to prove the same.  On the contrary, Annexure C-11 is copy of an email sent by the OPs to the complainant informing that his documents have been sent to the Canada office to arrange the job offer and expected time period given by Canada office is two months. Subsequent to this email, another email dated 21.5.2014, copy of which is Annexure C-12, was sent by the OPs to the complainant regarding the arrangement of expected job offer very shortly. Although the OPs have prepared refund column in all the agreements very smartly in their own favour, yet, they have also written duties of the company at clause 1 (page 113 of the paper book) and the same reads as under :-

“1.    Duties of the Company :

        In consultation with its associates at various locations the Company shall provide the following services to its clients :

a)     Assess the client according to the information provided by the client in the assessment form.

b)     Assist the client in preparation of the case for grant of Quebec Selection Certificate ;

c)      Review and identify for submission required documents and supporting evidences;

d)     Submit the complete case with supporting documentation and evidence alongwith the submission report to the processing office on the receipt of all requisite documents from the client;

e)     Handle all correspondence with the processing office pertaining to client’s case;

f)      Intimate the requirements sent by Processing office during the progress of the case.

g)     Assist the client in keeping the file up to date;

h)     Advise the client about any subsequent changes in the Quebec Immigration laws and any subsequent conditions applicable to meet the selection criteria.”

However, throughout the case, the OPs have neither supported the complainant nor have they performed their duties upto the level as mentioned above. If OPs were not competent enough to proceed the case of the complainant to the Canadian High Commission, then there was no reason for them to enter into any kind of agreement/contract with the complainant.  This act of involving its innocent clients unnecessarily into agreement with unknown parties for their own selfish motives proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.         After a careful perusal of the file, 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.  Further, even after spending a huge amount, the complainant had to face failure of his attempt to settle abroad. Ultimately after giving harassment to the complainant, OPs refunded some amount to him out of the total money during the pendency of the case without explaining the reason and extent of the deductions which they have made on their own. Hence, the act of the OPs in retaining money of the complainant for a long period, forcing him to indulge into the present unnecessary litigation and then refunding some amount out of the total paid amount during the pendency of the case itself proves deficiency in service on their part.
9.         Undoubtedly the complainant hired the services of the OPs for proceeding 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 a reasonable part of the total amount must be refunded to the complainant by the OPs after deducting some amount towards expenses borne by them for processing the case. We are of the opinion that Rs.30,000/- would be just, fair and reasonable amount for the OPs to deduct from the total amount.  As already stated above, out of the total amount of Rs.4,67,533/- OPs have already refunded Rs.3,55,000/- during the pendency of the present case. After deducting aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/- from the balance Rs.1,12,533/- (Rs.4,67,533/- – Rs.3,55,000), an amount of Rs.82,533/- is still payable by the OPs and they are bound to pay the same.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  OPs are directed :-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.82,533/- to the complainant as explained above.

(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 OPs within one month 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 filing of the present complaint 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/-
10/02/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member