PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 12-05-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 242/2011
Between
Yousuf Ali Peedikaparamban, : Complainant
S/o. Abdu P.P., (By Adv. P. Muraleedharan,
Hajiyar Pally, Advocate and Notary Public,
Malappuram-676 519. Muralee Centre, Mattammal
Junction, Thevara P.O.)
And
1. M/s. World Wide Immigration : Opposite parties
Consultancy Services Ltd.,
A-12, Phase 6, (O.ps 1 to 5, 7 and 8 parties in
Industrial Area, S.A.S. Nagar, person)
Mohali, Punjab.
2. Chairman & Managing Director,
World Wide Group,
M/s. World Wide Immigration
Consultancy Services Ltd.,
A-12, Phase, 6, Industrial Area,
SAS, Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
3. Senior Director,
M/s. World Wide Immigration
Consultancy Services Ltd.,
A-12, Phase, 6, Industrial Area,
SAS, Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
4. Sales Associates,
M/s. World Wide Immigration
Consultancy Services Ltd.,
A-12, Phase, 6, Industrial Area,
SAS, Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
5. M/s. World Wide Immigration
consultancy Services Ltd.,
Sana Towers, Above Birla Sun
Life Insurance, Jos Junction,
M.G. Road, Kochi-682 016.
rep. by its Officer-in-charge/
Branch Manager.
6.Global Strategic Business
Consultancy FZCO, (O.P.6 deleted as per order
Dubai Air Port Free Zone, in I.A. 464/11 dt.26-11-2011)
3 W 315, P.B. No. 54527, Dubai.
7. Regional Manager,
M/s. World Wide Immigration
Consultancy Services Ltd.,
29, Dr. Nair Road, First floor,
T. Nagar, Behand Vani Mahal,
Chennai.
8. Officer-in-Charge,
R&W Department,
M/s. World Wide Immigration
Consultancy Services Ltd., A-12,
Phase 6, Industrial Area,
S.A.S. Nagar, Mohal, Punjab.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
Lured by the rosy promises and assurances of the opposite parties the complainant approached the opposite party on line to which the 4th opposite party sent an E-mail to the complainant on 02-08-2009 informing that they have received the complainant’s resume and informed the complainant that he would be easily qualified for permanent residence and work permit in Denmark under green card scheme. As directed by the 4th opposite party the complainant approached the 5th opposite party on 11-08-2009 and as directed by them he paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. Further the 5th opposite party directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- after a month the complainant complied with the direction. On the same day the 4th opposite party promised that they would arrange permanent residence and work permit within 6 months if the complainant remits Rs. 55,000/- on that day. Accordingly the complainant remitted the amount with the 5th opposite party. The 5th opposite party also received a sum of Rs. 8,000/- for the documentation charges. The complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 20,603/- on 29-10-2009 and on the very same day he remitted Rs. 73,375/- with the 5th opposite party. Again on 07-11-2009 the 8th opposite party demanded to remit 1,500 dollars. As per the direction of the 8th opposite party the complainant appeared in person at Chennai and he remitted a sum of Rs. 16,427/- before BSF Global Private Ltd., Chennai. The application was not properly filled out by the opposite parties. Thereafter he came to know that there are so many complaints against the fraud of the opposite parties. The complainant lodged a complaint before the Central Police Station, Ernakulam. The 5th opposite party agreed to refund the entire amount. In the meantime the complainant attended an interview in New Delhi conducted by Royal Danish Embassy . On 11-06-2010 they informed the complainant that his application was rejected. The appeal filed by the complainant also was rejected by the Embassy. Thereafter the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the amounts. There was no response from the side of the opposite parties. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a total amount of Rs. 1,87,865/- with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
2. The version filed by the opposite parties 1 to 5 and 7and 8.
The complainant has not impleaded M/s. Global strategic business consultancy Dubai, who is a separate legal entity and to whom the complainant had deposited a sum of 1,500 dollars. They are necessary party to the proceedings. The opposite parties have no connection what so ever with the said amount. The opposite parties are giving service only with respect to migration. The opposite parties only assist the candidate in processing his application. The complainant was required to submit the application in person before the visa application centre at Chennai and as such the opposite parties cannot be found fault with the same since the same was a legal requirement. The application was submitted with all the credentials provided by the complainant. The application of the complainant was rejected by the Danish Embassy on 21-05-2010. At the instance of the opposite parties the complainant preferred appeal against the rejection of his application. But appeal also was rejected. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has accepted all the terms and conditions in the agreement entered into between the parties. As per clause 10 of the agreement it is clearly stated that the fees is non-refundable. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. Subsequent to the filing of the version by the above opposite parties they opted not to contest the matter further for their own reasons which goes to show that the inferences by the complainant are necessarily and apparently accepted without demur. The 6th opposite party was deleted from the party array as per order in I.A. No. 460/2011 dated 26-11-2011. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A26 were marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
4. The Points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of
Rs.1,87,865/- from the opposite parties as expended by him?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay a
compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant?.
5. Point No. i. According to the complainant in fact there is no need for 3rd party service for obtaining permanent residence and work permit in Denmark under green card scheme. It is stated that fascinated by the assurances of the opposite parties the complainant had to expend Rs. 1,87,865/- to get a permanent residence in Denmark as promised by them. However the opposite parties failed to do so as promised and agreed by them for no reasons explained.
6. Admittedly the opposite parties have accepted the following amounts from the complainant.
Sl. No. | Date | Exts. | Amount in Rs. |
1 | 11-08-2009 | A3 | 55,000 |
2 | 29-10-2009 | A6 | 20,063 |
3 | 29-10-2009 | A7 | 73,375 |
4 | 11-12-2009 | A11 | 1,500 (USD) |
5 | 22-10-2009 | A 13 | 8,650 |
7. No explanation is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties against the allegations put forward by the complainant. The absence of the opposite parties in this Forum speaks volumes. In the above circumstances the opposite parties 1 to 5, 7 and 8 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amounts as per Exts. A3, A6, A7, A11 and A13 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization. Though the complainant submitted that he had to expend Rs. 15,000/- towards traveling expenses nothing is on record to substantiate the same.
8. Point No. ii. The primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely. No order for compensation is called for.
9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties on record shall jointly and severally pay the amounts as per Exts. A3, A6, A7, A11 and A13 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of e-mail dt.02-08-2009
A2 : Copy of leaf let
A3 : Copy of receipt dt. 11-03-2009
A4 : Copy of check list
A5 : Copy of receipt dt.10/22/2009
A6 : Copy of receipt dt. 29-10-2009
A7 : Copy of receipt dt. 29-10-2009
A8 : Copy of e-mail dt. 25-10-2007
A9 : Copy of e-mail dt. 03-11-2009
A10 : Copy of e-mail dt. 12-11-2009
A11 : Copy of receipt dt. 07-11-2009
A12 : Copy of letter dt/ 23-11-2009
A13 : Copy of receipt dt. 11-12-2009
A14 : Copy of e-mail dt. 28-12-2009
A15 : Copy of web site page
A16 : Copy of complaint dt. 25-05-2010
A17 : Copy of rejection letter
dt. 11-06-2010
A18 : Copy of letter dt. 04-06-2010
A19 : Copy of rejection letter
dt. 10-12-2010
A20 : Copy of e-mail dt. 17-12-2010
A21 : Copy of e-mail dt. 14-12-2010
A22 : Copy of e-mail dt. 29-05-2010
A23 : Copy of official website
information of Royal Danish
Embassy.
A24 : Copy of loan statement
A25 : Copy of agreement
A26 : Copies of certificates
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
