BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.212 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 18.06.2019

      Date of Decision:06.11.2023

Smt. Pooja Rani Gupta wife of Naveen Goel resident of Mohalla Viaks Nagar, Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s WWWICS Global Law Office, Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial           Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.

2.       M/s WWWICS Global Law Office Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office, 21-         22 Ground floor Midland Financial Center Opposite Hotel Kings,   G.T. Road, Jalanhdar through its Managing Director/ Branch   Manager Branch Office, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       None for the Complainant.      

                   Sh. GPS Rana, Adv.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP company had been advertising that it is engaged in providing of professional services for the preparations, submissions and processing of the immigration case of individuals desirous of going abroad as well as for their dependent family members. The complainant had been desirous of settling abroad on immigration basis and after going through the advertisement and proclamation made by the OP company, complainant approached the Jalandhar office of the Op for availing the aforesaid services being offered by the OP. On going to the Jalandhar Office of the OP, complainant was assured by the staff working in the Jalandhar Office that the offered services would be provided to the complainant subject to the payment of the money. She was also told by the staff working is the Jalandhar Office that the money would be received from the complainant in stages depending upon the progress in the case of the submission of the requisite case for immigration of the complainant. As directed by the staff of the OP Company working in Jalandhar Office, complainant had provided to them all the requisite documents which she was told to furnish to them. The complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.72,034/- to the OP company by way of principle amount as demanded by the staff of the OP company and besides the aforesaid amount, the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.12,966/- by way of GST payable on the amount of Rs.72,034/-. In this manner, she had paid to the OP a sum of Rs.85,000/-. On receipt of the aforesaid amount, the complainant was assured by the staff of the OP company working is in the Jalandhar Office that the needful will be done without any loss of time. The aforesaid payment had been made ot the OPs in November 2017. Part of the payment had been remitted to the OPs through RTGS and the rest of the payment had been made in cash. After making the aforesaid payment and the handing over of the requisite documents in the Jalandhar Office of the OPs, despite repeated inquiries by the complainant, no satisfactory reply was being offered to the complainant regarding her immigration and ultimately, she was informed that her immigration request had been declined by the Embassy of the Country for which the immigration had been applied. When this aforesaid fact was told to the complainant by the staff of the OP company working at Jalandhar, she requested for being handing over the copies of the documents submitted by the OPs to concerned Embassy for seeking immigration but no such document was supplied to her and instead, she was told that the OP company is contemplating to file an appeal against the rejection of her request for grant of immigration and for the said purpose, a lawyer has to be engaged. For availing the services of the Lawyer, the complainant was asked to pay Rs.45,000/-. Believing the said representation of the OPs, the complainant had also paid to the OP Company in its Jalandhar office an amount of Rs.45,000/- to be paid for lawyers fee. Despite all the payments having been made by the complainant till date, no information has been furnished to the complainant to the effect as to what had happened to the appeal filed by the OP company against the request for the grant of immigration to the complainant. In the above circumstances, the OP company has resorted to unfair trade practices and as such, is liable to refund the total amount received from the complainant i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/-. Feeling aggrieved the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs on 22/10/2018, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.1,30,000/- received from the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental torture and harassment and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for having wasted her one academic year by keeping her in the lurch regarding the grant of the immigration and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. It is the complainant who inspite of various repeated requests by the OPs No.1 and 2 vide emails dated 22/9/2018, 247/9/2018, 29/9/2018 could not even authenticate and sent the case preparation and mandatory forms back to the OPs for her immigration case and never reverted back, due to which her immigration case could not be filed. As such, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs. Thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present case is a case of non-submission, disinterest and non-cooperation on the part of the complainant and is trying to put complete blame on the shoulders of the answering OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant retained the services of the answering OPs No.1 and 2 by entering into a contract of engagement dated 8/11/2017 with the answering OPs No.1 and 2 under Federal Skilled Worker Category – Express Entry, Canada and paid an amount of Rs. 85,000/- vide receipts dated 8/11/2017 as professional fee to the answering OPs. The complainant was duly provided with all the information for submitting the complete documents for getting her education credentials assessed and for processing of permanent immigration case before the concerned authorities. The complainant was provided a checklist for getting her educational credentials assessed by World Education Services (designated Educational Credential Assessment Authority, Canada in short WES) and as per the said checklist, the complainant on 10/1/2018 submitted the documents, which were assessed and after processing and completing all the formalities, the same were forwarded to WES on 18/1/2018 for getting the same assessed and on the basis of said documents, the positive WES result was received by the OPs and sent the same to the complainant on 21/4/2018. Meanwhile, the checklist for further processing of her permanent immigration case was provided to the complainant. The complainant submitted her resume vide email dated 14/5/2018 with the answering OPs. The OPs asserted the documents submitted by the complainant and discrepancies were sent to the complainant vide email dated 19/5/2018. As per the documents and information submitted by the complainant NOC, NOC -4032 was allotted to her and complete information was provided to her regarding the same. Thereafter, the complainant vide email dated 15/6/2018 finalized her “NOC-4032”. In the meanwhile, the OPs No.1 and 2 received the updated resume of the complainant and the same was again re-assessed as per the NOC and deficient information pertaining to job duties of the complainant was communicated to the complainant vide email dated 20/7/2018 with suggested modifications. Thereafter, after receiving the updated resume, the OPs vide email dated 20/9/2018 sent mandatory forms to the complainant for authentication. Despite being reminded vide emails dated 22/9/2018, 24/9/2018 and 29/9/2018, the complainant failed to submit her authenticated case filing forms till date rather vide email dated 1/10/2018, complainant tried to put the complete blame on the shoulders of the OPs and blamed the OPs for misguiding for choosing her NOC-4032 whereas the complainant wanted to change her from NOC-4032 to NOC-4214. It is pertinent to mention that vide email dated 15/6/2018, the complainant herself confirmed the NOC-4032. The complainant after being knowledgeable about the whole immigrations process has herself filed her immigration case and never reverted back. The answering OPs are still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as the case of the complainant has not been rejected by any authority till date and can still be considered, provided the complainant submit her mandatory case filing forms an can again confirm her NOC for which she is interested. As such, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the OPs. The complainant entered into another contract of engagement dated 8/11/2017 with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai which is a separate and distinct legal entity incorporated under UAE laws and had paid US $500 to M/s GSBC, Dubai vide receipt dated 21/11/2017. Since the complainant had committed breach of contract by not authenticating and providing back the case filing and mandatory forms to the OPs No.1 and 2. It has further alleged that complainant has failed to perform her part of the contract as she has failed to submit authenticated case filing forms, despite being reminded on numerous occasions by the OPs No.1 and 2. The answering OP is still ready and willing to perform its parts of the contract provided the complainant submits his documents and authenticated case filing forms. The answering OP has provided all possible services to the complainant. However, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP. It is pertinent to mention here that an amount of Rs. 15,300/- out of Rs. 1,00,300/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant and is non-refundable as the same has gone into Government account as is clear from the receipt dated 8/11/2017. This Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint since the complainant had agreed in Clause 20 of the contract dated 8/11/2017 that all the differences and dispute arising between the parties shall be referred to the sole Arbitration of the arbitrator appointed by the company. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached the OPs to make the efforts for settling abroad on immigration basis and approached them for availing their services for the same. It is also admitted that an amount of Rs.85,000/- was received by the OPs and it is also admitted that an agreement was executed between the parties for availing the services of OPs, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for OPs very minutely.

6.                It is admitted case of the parties that complainant approached the OPs to make the efforts for settling abroad on immigration basis and approached them for availing their services for the same. It is not disputed that an amount of Rs. 85,000/- was initially received by the OPs. Receipt to this effect was also issued by the OPs. Complainant has proved on record the text invoice Ex. C4. It is also not disputed that an agreement was executed between the parties for availing the services of OPs. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service on the part of OPs that despite having received from the complainant money required, the OPs have never applied for the grant of immigration with the embassy nor even the request was rejected or declined by the embassy concerned. She has proved agreement, payment invoice, cheque, statement of account, the application form filled for availing the services of the OPs and then legal notice was sent to the OPs. All these documents have been proved by the complainant from Ex.C2 to Ex.C9.

7.                As discussed above, it is admitted that complainant approached the OPs for availing the services but as per the submission of OPs, the present case is of non submission and non co-operation on the part of complainant. The contract agreement has been admitted which has been proved as Ex.OP2 and Ex. C5. Ex.OP4 shows that the checklist was provided to the complainant for getting her educational credentials assessed by World Education Services. In reply to the letter, complainant submitted the documents on 10/1/2018 which were forwarded to the WES on 18/1/2018 vide Ex. OP5 for getting the same assessed and vide Ex. OP6 the credentials analysis of the complainant was received. Vide Ex. OP7, OPs were sent the checklist for further processing of immigration case and vide Ex. OP8 complainant sent her resume to the OPs. Vide Ex. OP9 complainant was informed to check NOC Code 4032 and further was asked to clarify the same. Vide Ex. OP10, she confirmed her NOC Code and vide Ex. OP11, the documents were still awaited and this information was given to the complainant by the OPs and vide Ex. OP12, the form was sent to the complainant for authentication. This email was sent on 20/9/2018 and reminders were sent to the complainant to reply and authenticate the requirement on 22/9/2018, 24/9/2018 and 29/9/2018 but the complainant failed to provide the authentication rather threatened the OPs.

8.                From the above said documents, it is proved that complainant availed the services of the OPs and there was regular correspondence between the complainant and OPs. Service tax has already been paid by the OPs to the Government as per submission of the OPs. OPs have been sending the due information to the complainant as and when they receive anything from the concerned authorities. As per the above said documents and letters, the fault was on the part of the complainant for not providing the authentication as was demanded by the OPs. OPs have produced on record another agreement Ex. OP14 vide which the complainant entered into the contract of engagement with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai. Ex. OP15 is the receipt given by the complainant as a professional fee of M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai. This shows that complainant has availed the services of the OPs and without informing the OPs entered into the agreement with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai. This is the breach of the contract. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs rather the complainant herself as committed breach of contract.

9.                In view of above detailed discussion, the complainant has failed to prove her case and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

06.11.2023                    Member                               President