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

                                   Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2017

                                         Date of institution:  17.01.2017                                        Date of decision   :  26.09.2017

Lakhbir Kumar son of Rajinder Parsad, resident of H.No.136, Village Palsora, Chandigarh.

 ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     M/s. World Advisor Consultants, SCO 665, Top Floor, Sector 70, Mohali, Punjab through its MD/Prop Sh. Harvinder Singh.

2.     Shri Harvinder Singh, MD M/s. World Advisor Consultants, SCO 665, Top Floor, Sector 70, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                   ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member                          Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri Pawan Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

Opposite Parties Ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Lakhbir Kumar has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant approached the OPs for work visa in Canada.  The OPs fully assured the complainant that they shall procure the work visa and job for the complainant within four to six months.  The complainant entered into an agreement dated 30.03.2016 with the OP as per which the OPs were to provide guidance and counseling and processing and documentation of the case/profit of the complainant for work visa in Canada. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.24,780/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 19.02.2016. Thereafter on demand of the OPs, the complainant again paid Rs.10,000/-. The six months period as assured by the OPs expired in October.  The complainant requested the OPs to speed up the matter and fulfill the terms of the agreement but the OPs on one pretext or the other delayed the matter. The complainant has averred that ten months have expired but the OPs failed to arrange the work visa for the complainant.  The complainant paid the demanded amount to the OPs by arranging friendly loan from his relatives.  The complainant requested the OPs to refund his amount and also got served legal notice on 05.11.2016 which was received back unclaimed.    Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs,   the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to refund him Rs.34,780/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum; to pay him compensation for harassment Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of legal proceedings Rs.15,000/-.

3.             Ms. Harmandeep Kaur, Counselor accept the notice on behalf of OP No.1 but refused to receive the notice of OP No.2 on the ground that there is no person by the name of Harvinder Singh as MD.  None appeared for both the OPs Hence the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2017.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1; copies of passport Ex.C-1; agreement Ex.C-2; payment receipt Ex.C-3; legal notice Ex.C-4; returned envelope Ex.C-5 and postal receipts Ex.C-6 and C-7.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant approached the OP for work permit visa for Canada.  He has further argued that the OP had assured that the complainant would be provided visa and Rs.34,780/- was received from him. The counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the OPs assured that the work visa would be arranged for the complainant within six months. However, after expiry of six months the complainant has been approaching the OPs but neither the visa has been arranged nor the amount has been refunded to him. Thus, the counsel for the complainant has prayed for allowing the present complaint by directing the OPs to refund the deposited amount alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony besides compensation for litigation also.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments and heard the oral submissions addressed by the counsel for the complainant. The complainant has proved on record agreement dated 30.03.2016 Ex.C-2  executed between the parties. As per clause 3 of the agreement, the OPs were to provide guidance and counseling and put up his case for Canada.  Clause-4 of the agreement provides that in case the OPs failed to arrange the job offer letter, the amount of Rs.24,780/- shall be refundable.  The agreement has been duly signed by the complainant as second party and by the authorised person on behalf of the OPs as first party.  The complainant has proved payment of Rs.24,780/- vide receipt dated 19.02.2016.  The plea of the complainant that he has also paid Rs.10,000/- to the OPs is without any documentary proof.  Ms. Harmandeep Kaur, Counselor has accepted the notice on behalf of OP No.1 but refused to receive the notice on behalf of OP No.2 on the ground that there is no such person by the name of Shri Harvinder Singh as MD.  The perusal of memo of parties of the complaint reveals that the complainant has impleaded OP No.1 through its Managing Director/Prop. Shri Harvinder Singh and OP No.2 as Harvinder Singh as Managing Director/Prop. Of the OP No.1 in his individual capacity.  Thus, refusal to receive notice on behalf of OP No.2 is without any basis. Inspite of receipt of notice on behalf of OP No.1 none appeared for it and thus both the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2017.   The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted.  The complainant has sought direction to the OPs to direct the OPs to refund the deposited amount of Rs.34,780/- but the complainant has proved payment of Rs.24,780/- vide receipt dated 19.02.2016 Ex.C-3 and this amount is also mentioned in the agreement Ex.C-2. The complainant has failed to prove the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the OPs as no receipt by the OPs has been produced by the complainant. Thus, the complainant is only entitled to refund of Rs.24,780/- besides compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.24,780/- (Rs. Twenty four thousand seven hundred eighty only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 19.02.2016 till actual refund.  We also find that complainant is entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/-  (Rs. Twenty five  thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation cost. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.            

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 26.09.2017

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member