Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/636/2014

Vinay Kumari Bhagat - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s WWICS Group - Opp.Party(s)

In person

24 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/636/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	22/09/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	24/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Vinay Kumari Bhagat w/o Sh. Baljinder Kumar, R/o H.No. 3327, 2^nd Floor, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

Versus

 

M/s WWICS, SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:    SH. P.L. AHUJA             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                    

Argued by:    Complainant in person.

Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant had engaged the services of Opposite Party, for processing her case for permanent residency for Australia, on 19.12.2013, by paying a sum of Rs.61,798/- through her credit card vide Annexure C-2. The Complainant further paid a sum of Rs.43,534/- (796$) to Vetassess towards processing fee on 21.1.2014 vide Annexure C-3. The Opposite Party assured that the whole process would be completed in 8/12 months. It has been alleged that after waiting for 8/12 months, when there was no positive response from the side of the Opposite Party, the Complainant made umpteen number of visits to the office of Opposite Party and even exchanged a number of e-mails regarding the status of her case, but no fruitful result came out. Eventually, fed up with the attitude of the Opposite Party, the Complainant made a request to refund the whole amount paid by her, but the Opposite Party refused to accede to her request. In these circumstances, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant had engaged the services of the Opposite Party by entering into a Contract of Engagement dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure R-1) and had paid a total professional fee of Rs.55,000/- against which two receipts were issued to her (Annexure R-2 & R-3). The amount of Rs.6,798/- was paid as taxes. An amount of Australian Dollar 796 was paid as fee to respective Skill Assessment Body (Annexure R-4), which was non-refundable as per Clause 7 of the Contract of Engagement. It has been asserted that the Opposite Party was to prepare, submit and file the case of the Complainant before the respective Skill Assessment Body as per Clause 1 of the Contract of Engagement. The Opposite Party is nowhere at fault and no deficiency in service can be attributed towards the Opposite Party as it has performed its part. Further, the Complainant is not entitled to any refund as per Clause 11 of the Contract of Engagement. As the result of the assessment has been declared negative by the respective body and further an explanation has been given to its effect by the respective body itself therefore the Opposite Party is nowhere at fault as it has duly prepared, filed and submitted the case of the Complainant before the respective authorities.     Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Party and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Party. 

 

6.      The case of the Complainant is that she hired the services of the Opposite Party for processing her case for permanent residency for Australia by paying a sum of Rs.61,798/- through her credit card vide Annexure C-2 on 19.12.2013. Annexure C-3 is another payment of Rs.43,534/- (796$) to Vetassess towards processing fee paid on 21.1.2014. Annexure C-4 are various e-mail communications by the Complainant to communicate with Opposite Party and Vetassess regarding the status of her case. Annexure C-5 is a document with mention of title of occupation and the relevant code which was told to be left blank by the Opposite Party as per the version of the Complainant. Annexure C-1 is the application by the Complainant dated 14.7.2014 to the Opposite Party for refund of the fee paid. Annexure C-6 is an e-mail by the Opposite Party to the Complainant regarding the disapproval of her request of refund of the fee.

 

7.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that Vetassess is a separate independent company at Australia whose services are taken by the Opposite Party for skill assessment as per Annexure R-6. It has been contended that Vetassess is a separate identity and accordingly, the Opposite Party is not liable for the refund of the processing/ professional fee paid to the aforesaid Vetassess as the same is not party in the present case. It has been further stated by the Opposite Party that it played its part by preparing, filing and submitting the application of the Complainant before the Vetassess Australia (Skill Assessment Body). It has been further contended that the case of the Complainant was terminated as she was not eligible for the post of Manager. Further, the Opposite Party has taken the plea of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Furthermore, according to the Opposite Party as the Complainant has signed the Contract Form (Annexure R-1), she is not entitled for the refund of the fee.

 

8.      In our opinion though the Complainant has not made Vetassess (Skill Assessment Body) a party, still Opposite Party has to prove how the Complainant offered money to a company in Australia. Pertinently the Complainant did not go to Australia herself to get into contact of Vetassess and accordingly to pay the required fee to it. This shows that the Opposite Party has created another shield for its own benefit. Opposite Party knows better that for what purpose the said Vetassess was required.

 

9.      Further, regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, Annexure C-2 is the fee paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party at Chandigarh. As a part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh, therefore, the present Complaint lies very well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Furthermore, the Contract of Engagement (Annex.R-1) which as per Opposite Party is signed by the Complainant, but it seems that the consent was taken by the Opposite Party in hurry without explaining the terms and conditions to the Complainant in detail. Over this document (Annex.R-1) the title is written as ‘Skilled Worker Category – Skills Assessment’, then what was the need to take shelter of another skill assessment body namely Vetassess. Pertinently, Annex.C-5 bearing signatures of the Complainant is not completely filled, especially Col.No.1.1 and 1.2 which were the base of her case to be successful for the permanent residency for Australia. As argued by the Complainant during oral arguments, both these columns were told to be left blank by the Opposite Party itself with an assurance that the same were to be filled by Opposite Party only. The e-mail Annex.C-4 highlighting the error of the Complainant with managerial position makes it clear that the same was conveyed wrongly and so the relevant code was mentioned wrongly which only was the reason for the negative outcome of the skill assessment of the Complainant.  

 

10.      It is evident by careful perusal of Annexure R-1 that in Clause No. 7 and 11 of it, there is no scope of refund of fee at all. In Clause 7, there is mention that “The Client shall solely be responsible for any adverse effect on the case due to delay/ non-payment/ short-payment of Skill Assessment fee to Skill Assessment Body”. But there was no such fault on the part of the Complainant. Now, the main point to be considered is who will be responsible if facts are conveyed wrongly by the Opposite Party to the Skill Assessment Body. In Clause No.16 of Annexure R-1 there is mention of support to the client as “The Client would be provided with specialized services by a team of professionals having vast experience and exposure in their relevant fields”. But actually in the present case it was Complainant all alone only struggling for the success of her attempt for permanent residency in Australia. As pointed out by Opposite Party that Annexure C-5 is only single page of certain document, the Complainant clarified that Annexure C-5 is the original form and Annexure R-5 produced by the Opposite Party is just record of Opposite Party and does not go to Immigration Branch. This point was not further rebutted by the Opposite Party. Therefore the plea taken by the Opposite Party with regard to Annexure C-5 can not be taken into account.  

 

11.      Interestingly, the entire e-mail communication was between the Complainant and Vetassess. The Opposite Party nowhere showed its presence as is evident from the e-mail communications even after taking a huge amount as processing fee. It was only the Complainant who was requesting the Vetassess time and again for her skill assessment, then re-assessment and Opposite Party did not play its role with responsibility and left the Complainant helpless for communicating with the Vetassess that too at Australia. 

 

12.      If Opposite Party itself was not competent enough to proceed with the case of the Complainant, then there was no reason for it to get into any kind of contract/ agreement with the Complainant. This act of involving its innocent Clients unnecessarily into Agreement with unknown parties for its own selfish motive proves deficiency in service.

 

13.      No doubt, Opposite Party has to process not a single application but lot many, but still it was its sole responsibility to get Annexure C-5 Col. 1.1 and 1.2 filled by the Complainant herself to her utmost satisfaction with her own hands so that there was no chance of mistake during the processing of her case. This careless act of Opposite Party proves deficiency in service on its part, which certainly has caused tremendous mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.

 

14.      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint should succeed. The same is accordingly, partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

 

 [a] To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

15.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above, apart from paying costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

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

Announced

24^th April,2015                                         

Sd/-

  (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER