DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Harvinder Kaur Toor resident of Kothi No. 747, SST Nagar, Patiala 147001.

                                                                   ---Complainant

Vs

[1]     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS Limited), Head Office : SCO No. 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Chairman –cum- Managing Director. 

[2]     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS Limited), A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali (Punjab), through its Manager/ General Manager.

[3]     M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS Limited), #34-35, Basement, New Shopping Center, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana – 141001.

          President Address:-

WWICS, Global Resettlement Solutions, Noble Enclave, 2^nd Floor, Opp. Hotel Park Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager/ General Manager/ Marketing Executive.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      Shri Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the Complainant.

Shri Raman Walia, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                 The instant complaint relates to allegations on account of trauma and mental agony suffered by the Complainant due to alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties in not being able to provide adequate guidance for obtaining permanent residency in Canada.

                    Factually speaking, the Complainant had approached the Opposite Parties for professional guidance and services for getting permanent residency in Canada. On evaluation of her status and qualification, the Opposite Parties informed her that she was sure to get permanent resident visa within six months and also could substantially save on the fee paid by her, as her sons were in Canada. The Complainant accordingly entered into a contract of engagement with the Opposite Parties, which has been placed at Annexure C-1.  As per this contract, the Opposite Parties were responsible for preparing the case of the Complainant for immigration to Canada and submission of all required documents, besides handling of correspondence with the visa authorities and providing of documents and information required for processing the case. The Complainant paid `30,000/- as professional fee to the Opposite Parties, as per the details given in Annexure C-2  and C-3 respectively.  She also paid Canadian $ 80  in the name of World Educational Services for evaluation of her foreign academic credentials. As per the Complainant another Canadian $700 was paid by her vide Cheque dated 14.11.2002.  Apart from the aforesaid fees, the Complainant was also required to pay another fee of Canadian $550 for self, her spouse and dependent child above the age of 22 years and Canadian $150 for each accompanying dependent child under 22 years.  The Complainant paid the required fees of `16,500/- and `39,800/- to the Canadian High Commission by way of draft.

                    The  Complainant has said that as per the contract, Opposite Parties had undertaken to refund whole fee and professional fee in the event of rejection of the case.  In the intervening period, the Complainant was transferred from her job at Ludhiana to Ferozepur and hence, her postal address also changed. She received a letter dated 17.09.2008, from the Opposite Parties, enclosing a photocopy of letter dated 03.09.2008 written by the Canadian High Commission, wherein she was required to submit various documents.  These documents included her application form, birth certificates of both children, Right of Permanent Residence Fee, proof of available and transferable funds, photograph, foreign travel form, photocopies of all pages of current and old passports for both children and original recent police clearance certificates for all.

                    The Complainant consulted Opposite Party No. 3 and apprised them that both her sons had become independent being above 22 years of age, and had got employment in United States and they would not be accompanying the Complainant and her spouse as dependents. Also both had independently filed their immigration cases with the Canadian High Commission. Opposite Party No 3 advised the Complainant to submit an affidavit regarding the status of her sons, as well as other requisite documents for herself and her spouse for onward transmission to the Canadian High Commission. In accordance with the advise given the Complainant submitted all documents required, along with affidavit dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure C-5).  At this stage, she was given to understand that she and her husband would probably get an interview waiver.

                    Meanwhile, a final reminder dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure C-6) for depositing the documents was received from the Canadian High Commission for response within 30 days. This document was not received by the Complainant, because of her change of address due to her transfer, as mentioned above. Even the Opposite Parties did not bother to inform or contact the Complainant regarding this letter and hence, the submission of documents was not done in time. As the Complainant did not get any response from the Opposite Parties or the Canadian High Commission for 2-3 months, she visited the office of the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh on 17.12.2008 to know about the progress of her case. She was then shown the letter dated 28.11.2008. She was advised by Sh. K.J. Singh, Assistant Manager, Case Processing Section, Mohali to write a letter to the Canadian High Commission.  All documents required for her sons had already been independently filed by her sons with the relevant authorities. In accordance with the guidance obtained, the Complainant submitted a letter dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure C-7), addressed to the Canadian High Commission, along with copy of the affidavit already submitted. The documents submitted by the Complainant were dispatched by the Opposite Parties to the Canadian High commission.

                    After this the Complainant received a letter dated 16.02.2009 from the Opposite Parties, in which letter dated 04.02.2009 received from the Canadian High Commission was enclosed, wherein reference was made to documents regarding her sons.  It was also written that as the Complainant has failed to comply with request for submission of Police Clearance Certificates and other documents, the concerned officer was not satisfied that the Complainant  was admissible under the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The application of the Complainant was therefore being refused vide letter dated 4.2.2009 (Annexure C-8).  The fee paid by the Complainant for herself and her spouse was refunded. Thereafter, the Complainant received a final letter dated 04.05.2009 (Annexure C-9) from the Canadian High Commission, in response to her letter dated 20.03.2009 sent by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for reconsideration of decision.  Vide this letter, the Canadian High Commission apprised that the application of the Complainant for permanent residency in Canada had been considered on its substantive merits and was refused.

                    The Complainant has alleged that even after submission of all requisite documents, her case was rejected by the Canadian High Commission, as the Opposite Parties had not properly advised her regarding the letter dated 03.9.2008, as well as letter dated 28.11.2008 and her case had been rejected due to fault of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has also alleged that had she got permanent residency in Canada, she would not have had to pay `30,00,000/- as fee for the education of her sons as it would have become 1/3^rd of what she was otherwise required to pay.  

                    The Complainant has thus filed the instant complaint with the allegations of deficiency in service and financial loss caused to her due to the same.  The Complainant has prayed for refund of the entire amount of `30,000/- charged by the Opposite Parties for professional services, besides the amount lost on interest on the borrowed amount which she paid for the education of her son. Complainant has also prayed for compensation for mental agony and costs.     

2.                 After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.                 Opposite Parties in their joint reply have taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is frivolous. The Complainant had entered into two separate Contract of Engagements i.e. one with the answering Opposite Parties (Annexure R-1) and second independent contract with M/s GSBC, Dubai, UAE.  The Opposite Parties have admitted receipt of `30,000/-. However, amount of US $ 700 was paid in favour of M/s GSBC, Dubai, the said company has not been impleaded as party in the present Complaint. The amount of `16,500/- by way of Draft dated 02.12.2002 was deposited by the Complainant in favour of the Canadian High Commission as Visa fee. Further, an amount of 60 $ was made in favour of WES. This was the fee for assessment of academic qualification of the Complainant, which was done and sent to the Canadian High Commission (details of payment from Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-2/D). 

                    Opposite Parties have stated that after initial assessment the immigration case of the Complainant was duly filed before the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 14.05.2003 (Annexure R-3).  File No. B045836243 was created in the name of the Complainant (information at Annexure R-3/A), which was duly informed by the answering Opposite Parties to the Complainant on 02.09.2003 (Annexure R-4).  Certain information was desired by the Canadian High Commission, which was intimated to the Complainant (Annexure R-6) and after receipt was duly given to the Canadian High Commission (Annexure R-7) vide letter dated 30.05.2008.

                    Another letter received from the Canadian High Commission dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure R-8)  was immediately forwarded to the Complainant vide letter dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure R-9). Another letter dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure R-10) was received from the Canadian High Commission and was sent to the Complainant on 01.12.2008 (Annexure R-11). Another letter dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure R-12) was received on 05.12.2008 by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant was accordingly informed with regard to the same on 09.12.2008 through tele-calling (details of tele-calling at Annexure R-13).  However, the Complainant instead of supplying the desired information started dealing/ communicating with the Canadian High Commission directly. Letter dated 18.12.2008 was sent by the Complainant directly to the Immigration Section of the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi (Annexure R-14).  Opposite Parties also gave the information desired from the Complainant by the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure R-15). Thereafter, the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 4.2.2009 informed that the Complainant had failed to comply with the request of submission of Police Clearance Certificate of her son, thus her application for immigration was being refused (Annexure R-16). This decision was duly communicated to the Complainant vide letter dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure R-17). Opposite Parties have further stated that on the request of the Complainant a representation dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure R-18) was sent to the Canadian High Commission, which was again refused vide letter dated 4.5.2009 (Annexure R-19). The said information was communicated to the Complainant vide letter dated 14.5.2009 (Annexure R-20) and Cheque of refund of `38,208/- received from the Canadian High Commission was sent to the Complainant. In view of these details the ops have prayed that they have performed their duties to the best of their ability in a professional manner and it was only due to the fault of the Complainant that her case was refused as information required by the Canadian High Commission was not provided by her.

                    Opposite Parties have further stated that the Complainant had entered into a written contract of agreement with the Opposite Parties on 22.10.2002. As per the contract, the Complainant was required to attend all calls as and when given by the Visa Officer and promptly follow all instructions with the consent and approval of the Opposite Parties. However, the Complainant for reasons best known to her, directly communicated with the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 18.12.2008 and jeopardized her immigration case.  Moreover, she did not cooperate in the finalization of her immigration case.

                    On merits, the Opposite Parties while denying all averments made by the Complainant have reiterated the facts given above. They have further stated that the Complainant never met Sh. K.J. Singh, as alleged, and neither has the said person has been impleaded as party in the complaint. The Complainant herself violated the conditions of contract by directly corresponding with the Canadian High Commission without the consent of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has also not provide the required information as desired by the Canadian High Commission, due to which her immigration case was rejected.  Opposite Parties have therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                 It is evident from the records that the case for immigration of the Complainant and her family members has been dealt with by the Opposite Parties from 2002-2009. As per the terms of the contract between the parties, the Complainant has provided information required by the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties in turn have forwarded whatever information needed to the concerned authorities. Only the letter dated 28.11.2008 from the Canadian High Commission has been replied by the Complainant directly to the Canadian High Commission. Her case has been rejected by the Canadian High Commission on the ground of non submission of ‘original recent police clearance certificate for all’. This document could be obtained by the Complainant only for onward submission to the Canadian High Commission. It could definitely not be procured by the Opposite Parties. Hence, holding the Opposite Parties liable for deficiency in service and for trauma and mental agony due to rejection of Visa would in our onion be unjustified.   

7.                 The details of payments made by the Complainant have already been explained by the Opposite Parties. No excessive amount has been charged from her for the services rendered. The Complainant has prayed for refunding of `30,000/- paid by her to the Opposite Parties, besides compensation. The letters dated 4.2.2009 (Annexure C-8) and 4.5.2009 (Annexure C-9) also placed on record by the Opposite Parties (Annexure R-16 and Annexure R-19) are clear that the case of the Complainant has been rejected mainly due to non-compliance of the required documents regarding police clearance certificate(s) and other required documents. An extract of the letter dated 4.2.2009 of the Canadian High Commission, which will make the position clear, is reproduced below: -

“You failed to comply with our request for the submission of police clearance certificate(s) and other required documents and thus precluded an assessment by an officer whether your family members are not inadmissible to Canada under the inadmissibility provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including Section 36 of the Act. I am not satisfied that you are not inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I am therefore, refusing your application.”

8.                 Relying on the aforesaid observations by the Canadian High Commission, we can definitely deduce that inability of the Complainant to get immigration from the Canadian High Commission is not due to any fault of the Opposite Parties, but due to her own discrepancy/ deficiency in not providing the relevant documents/ certificate(s), as demanded by the Canadian High Commission.  In such a situation, holding the Opposite Parties liable for deficiency in service and for harassment and mental trauma would not be fair or justified.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

9.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07^th May,  2012.                                                                         Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)