Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/741/2014

Jaskirat Singh Jassal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vipul Dharmani

08 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/741/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	12/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	08/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Jaskirat Singh Jassal son of Sh. T.P.S. Jassal, Resident of Flat No. F-404, Gillco Towers, Gillco Valley, Sector 127, Kharar, Mohali.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, Office at SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, Near Hotel Aroma, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Managing Director.

 

Second Address:-

 

M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali – 160055, Punjab, through its Managing Director.

 

…… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party on 11.04.2013 for immigration to Manitoba, under PNP () Skilled Category for settlement. After his counseling by the Senior Counselor () of the Opposite Party, the Complainant was asked to submit requisite documents and deposit the fee for the same on 18.4.2013. The Complainant tendered his documents and executed three Contracts of Engagement Manitoba PNP Skilled Category Settlement Plan dated 18.4.2013 ( and also paid an amount of Rs.1,68,540/- and Rs.33,708/- vide Annexures C-2 & C-3. Thereafter, on the asking of the Opposite Party, the Complainant further deposited Rs.3,00,573/- (USD 5,500/-) towards second contract of agreement dated 18.4.2013 in favour of M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy-FZCO, an associate company of Opposite Party at Dubai, UAE (Annexure C-4 to C-6). After the receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the Opposite Party on 26.4.2014, informed the Complainant that his case could not be processed by the Opposite Party for another few months as the Sponsors were not giving letters any longer. In the said scenario, the Opposite Party offered to change the case of the Complainant to FSW Category () as he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria and told him that if he does not opt for the said offer, the money deposited by him would not be refunded and if he pursue his case then the amount deposited by him would be adjusted after the case is completed. Under this pressure, the Opposite Party coerced the Complainant to pursue his case under FSW category. In pursuance to the same, the Complainant was coerced to sign another Contract of Agreement (Skilled Worker Category, Canada) dated 27.4.2014 by the Opposite Party (Annexure C-7). The Complainant was further asked to deposit an amount of Rs.84,270/- which was paid by the Complainant vide Annexure C-8.  As per the directions of the Opposite Party, the Complainant again submitted all the requisite documents as were asked by the Opposite Party. However, on 18.7.2014, the Opposite Party informed him that his case cannot be pursued as he is ineligible for the said category. Thereafter, the Complainant and his father approached the Opposite Party and had various meetings with its officials for refund of the fees charged by the Opposite Party on false assurances and promises that too twice, but to no avail as the Opposite Party kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other.       When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

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

 

3.     Opposite Party in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant had paid a professional fee of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- in accordance with the Contract of Engagement. It has been averred that the amount of Rs.18,450/- and Rs.3,708/- were paid as service tax which was non-refundable. The Complainant was clearly told that the normal time period to obtain the Settlement Plan would take about 24 months from the date of retainership and the said fact is mentioned in the Agreement, however, the Complainant became restless and neither submitted the required documents and started asking for refund which was not admissible as per the Contract of Engagement and later on requested for changing the immigration case from Manitoba PNP Skilled Category to FSW Category and eventually, signed the Contract of Engagement dated 27.4.2014 with regard to the same. Thus, out of the total fee of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- paid with regard to Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-1 & R-2), the Complainant was eligible for refund of Rs.1,12,500/- and an amount of Rs.65,000/- out of the said amount was adjusted against the FSW category. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- as the retainer fee as per the Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-3) and with regard to the balance fee of Rs.65,000/- the same was adjusted from his earlier refundable amount of Rs.1,12,500/- with regard to the earlier program entered into by the Complainant. An amount of Rs.9270/- was paid on account of service tax and the said amount was non-refundable as per the Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-3). It has been pleaded that the Complainant was shifting his stand from one immigration program to another and was also not submitting the requisite documents, accordingly, it was a case of non-cooperation as the Opposite Party has always been ready and willing to provide the necessary services to the Complainant. It has been further pleaded that the Complainant had filed application for refund of his professional fee, which was not refundable as per the Contract of Engagement, being voluntary withdrawal, however, the Opposite Party had already sympathetically considered his request for refund and asked him to collect the refund Cheques, however, the Complainant was not agreeing for the same. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.     The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

7.     The case of the Complainant is that he hired the services of the Opposite Party for immigration to Manitoba, Canada, under Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) skilled category for settling abroad and paid the requisite fee for proceeding his case, but the Opposite Party for a long time did not revert to the Complainant regarding the status of his application. As per the case of the Complainant, in the said scenario, the Opposite Party advised the Complainant to change his case to Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) category. The Opposite Party re-checked all the documents and scores of the Complainant and assured him that they will get the case of the Complainant passed in FSW category and if not, the money will be refunded to him. For this entire exercise, the Complainant entered into three different agreements. Annexure C-2 and C-3 are the receipts of the fee paid to the Opposite Party for the first time and later also the required payment was made by the Complainant as per the requirement of the Opposite Party. Annexure C-9 (colly) are the various e-mail communications between the Opposite Party and the father of the Complainant regarding his request for the refund which never fructified.

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that M/s GSBC is a separate independent company having a separate legal entity and accordingly, the Opposite Party is not liable with regard to the same nor liable for the refund of the professional fee paid to the aforesaid M/s GSBC as the Complainant has not made the same as party. It has been further stated by the Opposite Party that it played its part by preparing, filing and submitting the application of the Complainant for his settlement abroad. It has been urged by the Opposite Party that the case of the Complainant was terminated due to non-cooperative attitude of the Complainant and non-submitting of the required documents in time. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party stated that the Opposite Party Company had already refunded the entire refundable amount to the Complainant, after deducting its service charges.    

 

9.     In our opinion though the Complainant has not made M/s GSBC a party, still Opposite Party has to prove how the Complainant offered money to a company in Dubai. Pertinently the Complainant did not go to Dubai for getting the contract entered into with said M/s GSBC. Further, Annexure C-10 the contact address of the OP-Company has a specific mention of M/s GSBC as well, as their own address. This shows that Opposite Party has created another shield for its own benefit. Opposite Party knows better that for what purpose the said M/s GSBC was required.

 

10.     So far as the allegation of the Opposite Party regarding non-cooperative attitude of the Complainant for not submitting the required documents is concerned, no evidence to that effect has been placed on record by the Opposite Party to prove the same. Further, Annexure C-9(colly) are the various e-mail communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Party, which also did not give any fruitful results. Although the Opposite Party has prepared refund column in all the three agreements, very smartly in its own favour, yet on the other hand, it has written duties of the company at Cl. No.1 (Pg. No.16) and Support to the client at Cl. No.14 (Pg. No.22) , which reads as under: -  

 

“1.  Duties of the Company: In consultation with its associates at various locations the Company shall provide the following services to its client:-

 

a)   Review and identify for submission required documents to the associated company.

 

b)   Submit the complete details about the client to the associated Company on receipt of the same from the client.

 

c)   Handle all correspondence with the associated Company pertaining to the client’s case.

 

d)   Intimate the requirements of the same to the client.

 

e)   The Company shall only be responsible for preparation and submission of documents to be submitted to the associated Company and not for any immigration consultancy or immigration application filing or assessment or processing.”

 

“14. Support to the Client: The Client would be provided with specialized service by a team of professionals having vast experience and exposure in their relevant fields.”

 

11.     But throughout the case, the Opposite Party has neither supported the Complainant nor has it performed its duties upto the level as mentioned above. If Opposite Party itself was not competent enough to proceed the case of the Complainant to the Canadian High Commission, 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.

 

12.     After careful perusal of the file, we feel that no one can estimate the pain and agony of the parents whose ward(s) could not get the desired destination i.e. settlement in abroad, as in the present case, which was the ultimate dream of a well-educated boy - the Complainant. Further, even after spending huge amount, the parents of the Complainant had to face the failure of their attempt to settle the Complainant abroad. Ultimately, after giving great harassment to the Complainant, the Opposite Party refunded some amount out of the total money to the Complainant, during the pendency of the case, without explaining the reason and extent of the deduction(s) which it has made on its own. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in retaining the money of the Complainant for a long period, forcing the Complainant to indulge into unnecessary litigation and then refunding some amount during the pendency of the case itself proves deficiency in service on its part.

 

13.     Undoubtedly, the Complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party for proceeding his case to settle abroad, but it is also a matter of fact that the Opposite Party retained and used the huge amount deposited by the Complainant for a long period of time. In our considered opinion, if the Canadian High Commission can refund the whole fee amount of 5500 USD, then the Opposite Party cannot retain the rest of amount of 550 USD with it. We feel that at least a reasonable part of total fee must be refunded to the Complainant by the Opposite Party after deducting the processing fee at the most to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.

 

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

 

[a]    To refund Rs.1,40,310/- (i.e. Rs.1,70,310.00 - Rs.30,000.00) to the Complainant after reasonable deduction of Rs.30,000/- towards service charge out of pending amount of Rs.1,70,310/-.

 

[b]    To refund balance 550 USD to the Complainant;

 

[c]    To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;

 

[d]    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, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] to [c] 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

08^th September, 2015                                

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER