DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No. 95 of 2017

                                                 Date of institution:  09.02.2017                                                     Date of decision   :  16.03.2018

Lakhbir Singh son of Shamsher Singh, resident of VPO Bhakra, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi, District Bilaspur (H.P.) 174201.

…….Complainant

Versus

M/s. Rudraksh Group Overseas Solutions, SCO 15-16, Top Floor, Phase-1, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through Ms. Renu Thakur, Ms. Neha Sharma, Mr. Manpreet Singh and Jatinder Singh alias Jatin.

……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Shri Paras Chug, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant availed services of OP for processing of visa file in embassy, so that he may get job in foreign country. OP promised verbally to the complainant that job to him in Canada will be got provided with minimum salary of Rs.1,60,000/- per month within 5-6 months and if it failed to do so, then refund of the received amount will be made. OP charged Rs.30,560/- for filling and processing the visa file in embassy including charges of registration on 04.04.2017. Rs.45,000/- more were got deposited from complainant by OP. Despite receipt of Rs.75,560/-, job of Software Developer in Canada at monthly salary of Rs.1,60,000/- not got provided to complainant. OP could not arrange for conducting of interview in embassy and nor it was able to get the medical check up of the complainant got conducted and as such complainant was harassed by OP because he had to visit from Bilaspur in Himachal Pardesh to Phase-1, Mohali many times by spending amount of Rs.25,000/-. Refund of amount of Rs.1,00,560/- with interest alongwith compensation  for mental agony and harassment of Rs.1.00 lakh sought by pleading deficiency in service on part of OP.

2.             In reply submitted by OP, it is claimed that in view of leveled allegations of cheating, the matter can be got decided from the competent court of civil jurisdiction because those allegations cannot be gone into the summary proceedings of this Forum. Besides it is claimed that complainant has presented distorted facts. In fact complainant approached OP for arranging visa for Canada because of OP being in the field of consultation and arranging for Visa. Complainant was directed to provide documents required for the purpose of seeking visa, but despite extensive efforts by OPs, the complainant failed to arrange for sought documents. Vital documents like that of experience certificate were not provided by complainant despite availing sufficient opportunities and as such prayer made for dismissal of the complaint. In fact OP started initiating process for providing service to complainant, but complainant failed to submit requisite experience certificate, albeit he claimed to have worked for more than 5 years in the field of Software Developer. OP never assured about getting of providing job on minimum salary. Frivolous allegations in this respect alleged to be leveled. Case of complainant was considered upto the end by OP and he was informed to provide educational qualification certificates as well as experience certificate, but he failed to do so and as such by denying each and every other averment of complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Vinay Kumar, authorised signatory of OP and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Perusal of receipts Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 reveal that amount of Rs.75,560/- was deposited by complainant with OP and it is not disputed by OP through its written reply or through affidavit of Shri Vinay Kumar, authorised signatory of OP. It is the claim of OP that requisite educational qualification certificates and the experience certificate were not provided by complainant himself and as such fault lays with complainant. No document produced by OP to establish that complainant was called in writing at any point of time to supply the educational qualification certificates or the experience certificate.  If that be the position, then fault to complainant cannot be attributed because he was supposed to supply only those documents, as would have been requisitioned from him by OP. So fault in this respect lays with OP. Even complainant himself cannot escape from liability because he was supposed to know that certificates regarding educational qualification and work experience liable to be handed over by him to OP, so that it may render due service of arranging for providing visa and job in foreign country to him. No receipt of production of documents regarding educational qualification certificates or of work experience certificate to OP produced on record by complainant. Even complainant has not alleged anywhere in the complaint as to on which date or in which month or year, he handed over the requisite certificates to OP. Had actually these certificates been handed over by complainant to OP, then he would have obtained the receipt from OP and even would have entered in correspondence with OP for claiming that despite handing over of requisite documents, due service not provided to him. No such correspondence entered by complainant with OP and as such virtually this complaint has been filed straightway without giving due chance to OP by complainant. Even if that chance may not have been provided by complainant to OP, despite that on inability of OP to provide the visa facility through embassy to complainant, OP itself should have refunded the due amount out of the received amount as per terms and conditions of the contract/agreement arrived at by it with complainant. Copy of terms and conditions of agreement not produced on record and nor those are pleaded and as such complainant entitled to refund of the entire amount with nominal compensation amount for mental agony and harassment of Rs.5,000/- particularly when he is unable to mention the dates of his various visits to OP at Mohali for pursuing his case of getting visa formalities complied with. Refund of received amount must be made by OP within 30 days from date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which OP must be rendered liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint namely 09.02.2017 till payment. Imposition of such condition is essential, so that OP may not retain the above referred amount unnecessarily for long time with it.

6.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund the received amount of Rs.75,560/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint namely 09.02.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OP.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

                Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the complainant/counsel for the OP is directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it will be the responsibility of the learned counsel to inform the OP accordingly.  Complainant, however, is informed today itself. This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble  Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.

March 16, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                                   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                 Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member