Delhi

New Delhi

CC/177/2014

Sh. Amit Mukerherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. WWWICS - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

 

                    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                  (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                           ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                             NEW DELHI-110001

 

 Case No. CC/177/2014                                           Dated:

 In the matter of:     

Amit Mukherjee

S/o Late Sh. A.K. Mukherjee

R/o 120, Sri Badrinath Apartment

Plot No. – 18, Sector -4, Dwarka ,

New Delhi-110075                                                    …… Complainant

 

Versus

WWICS

DLF, Centre Mezzanine Floor

           Savitri Cinema Commercial Complex

Greater Kailash, New Delhi-110048

Through its CMD

Also at

WWICS Global Re-settlement solutions

SCO2415-16, Sector-22 C,

7/B, Shantipath, Chanakyapuri,

New Delhi- 110021

           

                                                                       

                                                                                                …….Opposite Parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA– PRESIDENT

ORDER

The gist of the complaint is that pursuant to advertisement in daily newspaper, the complainant approached OP-1 for permanent immigration to Canada and paid Rs. 30,000/- on 23/09/2003 against receipt issued by the OP-1. The complainant thereafter, also made payments on demand on different account including for visa processing fee of Rs. 43,200/-  andRs. 6100/- for his second daughter in favour of OP-2 i.e. High Commission of Canada.  It is alleged that the complainant paid entire demanded money to the OPs and his primary application filed by OP-1 to OP-2 after a delay period of more than 7-8 months and that too much persuasion. The primary application was filed with the OP-2 by OP-1 in May, 2004 duly acknowledged by OP-2 in August,2004. It is alleged that OP-1 constantly assured the complainantthat the application was under process and would receive the information of clearance of his application.

In September,2009, OPs again demanded 100 USD  towards World Education Services which was paid by complainant. During all these years  the complainant paid the complainant had paid Rs. 1,60,600/- towards various heads to the OPs. The complainant had also incurred an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards translation, stamping and notarization of more than 100 of documents  asked by the OPs. It is alleged that the OP harassed the complainant  and delayed processing of his application for immigration  to Canada which ultimately resulted in rejection. Further, it is alleged that no proper, satisfactory reply was given by the OPs to the complainant and took  nearly a decade. Consuming 10 years for processing application for immigration attributable  to the OP-1 is deficient in  service beside costing and harassment to the complainant

Alleging deficiency in service the present complaint  has been filed.

The OP-1  filed written statement / version to the said complaint  denying all allegations. It is stated that as per the contract  of engagement  dated 23/09/2003 the complainant had agreed that he will not hold OP-1 liable  for any delay occurring due to the backlog of the cases and for any other reasons at the visa post. The case of the complainant  was prepared and filed with the Canadian High Commission on 28/02/2004 but was received back through  their letter dated 11/06/2004 due to non submission of IELTS. The case was again filed alongwithIELTS  result  on 06/07/2004 and the complaint was allotted a file no. vide Annexure R-5. Proper services were rendered by OP-1 to get complainant’s case processed by Canadian High Commission i.e. OP-2. Thereafter, the Canadian Government under a new enactment “Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act” came into force on 29/06/2012 terminated all the applications made before 27/02/2008 by the operation of law. The complainant was accordingly informed that his application was received by Canadian Government  on 25/08/2004  which was also terminated by the operation of law. It is also stated that the complainant alleged to have paid USD 1600 to M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai (in short M/sGSBC) on 20/10/2003 with whom the complainant held enter into a separate  contract  of enactment dated 23/09/2009 for availing post landing  services.

The Visa processing fee of Rs. 81,182.95/- has also been refunded by the Canadian High Commission to the complainant vide draft dated  24/10/2013. (Copy annexed as R-9)

It is also stated that the complainant had not taken the refund despite registered  letter dated 12/02/2014 and emails dated 08/03/2014. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

           The complainant and OP-1 filed their respective evidence and also addressed oral arguments. We have considered the material placed  before us  and the rival submissions of the parties. OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte on 04/04/2014 after notice.

The complainant and the OP-1 filed details of the amount paid by complainant to the OPs. The admitted position remains that the complainant took services of OP-1 for permanent immigration of Canada. There is no document filed on behalf of OP-1 to the effect showingdue persuasion with the OP-2 for obtaining the permanent immigration visafor the complainant after filing the application in 2004. Admittedly, the application was filed and acknowledged by OP-2  in August, 2004 after the result of IELTS. Silence on the part of OP-1 for the inordinate period till the new law came into effect in 2012 by Canadian Government shows lack of persuasion and deficiency on the part of OP-1. Rs. 81,182.95/- stands already refunded by the Canadian High Commission to the complainant vide draft dated 24/10/2013 but complainant did not take refund. The complainant despite issuance of the draft has since not accepted the refund. Therefore, no orders as against  the OP-2 can be issued. An amount of Rs. USD 16 was paid to GSBC and not to OP-1 .

In view of the discussions made above and the objections taken by OPs that this complaint is highly time barred. It is observed that initially the complaint paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 23/09/2003 and issue with the OPs continued till 2004. Rests are the Canadian Government’s enactments relates to the year 2012 which has no connection with present case. The Visa processing fee of Rs.  81,182.95/- was refunded by Canadian High Commission to the complainant which was not accepted by him. Moreover, the complaint is also not maintainable on the account of Pecuniary Jurisdiction as the complainant prayed for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- alongwith @18%  p.a. from 23/09/2003 till realization and composite sum of  Rs. 18,00,000/- . Conjointly, the amounts requested  to be paid in the prayer clause exceeds Rs. 20 Lacs.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum does not have the Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Accordingly, the complaint be returned to the complainant along with annexures/ documents by retaininga copy of the same for records with liberty to file the same before the competent Forum as per the Law.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on: 06/03/2020

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                            (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                PRESIDENT

 

         (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                         (HM VYAS)

             MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER