Order no. 36
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant approached the o.p. for permanent resident visa for Denmark and in this respect an agreement was executed in between the complainant and o.p. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as per the said agreement and also provided all the necessary documents as sought for by o.p. In spite of compliance of all the requirements o.p. did not submit the application before 20.8.11. The o.p. submitted wrong information to the Head Office, Delhi about the profile of the complainant resulting in unnecessary delay. The visa was not filed even after all formalities done by the complainant. Whenever the complainant found that no action was taken by o.p. the complainant demanded the amount of Rs.50,000/- with all documents. The o.p. committed delay in giving any information to the complainant. In view of the said fact since no action was taken on behalf of the o.p. the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- and also for interest along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- plus Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that in case of dispute between the parties regarding the non compliance of the agreement the only remedy lies to the complainant by seeking for redressal of his grievance through Arbitrator and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. It was stated that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to o.p. as their professional fee as per 2A contract of engagement, the complainant was required to submit the complete documents with IELTS within 45 days after the signing of contract of engagement for processing of his case. However, the complainant submitted only some documents due to which the case of the complainant could not be processed. The o.p. also stated that in the agreement that was entered into between the parties there was no provision that the amount paid by the complainant would be returned. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- along with all documents.
- Whether the o.p. communicated the complainant regarding non submission of the required documents.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that by taking advantage of the simplicity of the complainant who was a student at the relevant point of time and for seeking an employment contacted the o.p. and o.p. assured the complainant that he would be provided with a permanent visa and employment in Denmark and for that purpose the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- and also provided all the necessary documents sought for by o.p. Even after payment of the said amount no action was taken on behalf of the o.p. Ultimately whenever the complainant demanded the money o.p. refused to pay the same.
None appeared at the time of hearing of argument but as per the tenor of w/v it appears that o.p. raised objection regarding the maintainability of the case. since a provision was there in the said agreement that in case of dispute the matter is to be referred to the Arbitrator and accordingly this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Considering the materials on record it has been admitted by o.p. that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant claimed that he provided all the documents as sought for by o.p.
The o.p. in the w/v stated that the complainant could not provide the documents, but it is curious enough that the o.p. failed to produce any document before this forum that o.p. sought for any further document by making communication with the complainant. But instead of taking any effective step on behalf of o.p. the o.p. sat tight over the matter.
So far as the arbitration clause is concerned in this respect we must hold that Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission held that in spite of remaining a provision in the agreement for appointment of a Arbitrator in case of dispute the provision of C.P. Act can be invoked for redressal of the grievances of the parties. Therefore, this case is quite maintainable and since the complainant was not refunded with the amount and there was gross deficiency in service on the part of o.p. the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
t hat the CC No.292/2011 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
