BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.630 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          03.11.2014

                                                  Date of Decision:            24.04.2015       

Rajesh Kumar son of Som Nath, resident of House No.106, Golden State, Baltana, District Mohali, Punjab.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Rudraksh Group, SCO 15-16, Top Floor, Phase-1, Mohali through its Manager.

………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Mrs. Sonia Bansal, Member.

Present:    Shri HPS Kochhar, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Narinder Singh, counsel for the OP.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant Rajesh Kumar has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:

(a)    refund him Rs.2,70,760/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till actual payment.

(b)    pay him Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

(c)    pay him Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the complaint.

                The complainant’s case is that he approached the OP for visa to Canada.  The OP informed the complainant that fee for the whole process for getting the visa would be Rs.2,70,760/-. The complainant paid Rs.30,560/- to the OP vide receipt dated 12.04.2013  Ex.C-1 and balance amount of Rs.2,40,200/- to be paid by the complainant on arrival of visa documents.  The complainant paid Rs.2,40,200/- to the OP on 27.04.2013 vide receipt Ex.C-2. Contract of agreement Ex.C-3 was also executed between the parties. The OP assured that if the visa is refused to the complainant, the amount of Rs.2,70,760/- shall be refunded to him.  The complainant provided all the necessary documents as asked for by the OP from time to time but the OP failed to get visa for the complainant.  Despite repeated requests of the complainant, the OP has not refunded him the amount of Rs.2,70,760/-. Thus, as per the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2.             After the admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP who appeared and filed written reply.        The OP has pleaded in the preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and he has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The OP is consultant and not doing any business sending persons abroad or providing visas. The present dispute involves question of facts   which cannot be decided in summary proceedings.  On merits, the OP has denied that it took Rs.30,560/- from the complainant on 12.04.20-13 and further Rs.2,40,200/- on 27.04.2013. It has also denied having entered into contract of agreement with the complainant for providing services for visa to Canada. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-6.

4.             In order to rebut the complaint, the OP has tendered the affidavit of Mandeep Singh, its authorized representative Ex.OP-1/1 and no other document is tendered in evidence.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the evidence and written arguments. 

6.             Admittedly the complainant has availed the paid services of the OP for processing his case for immigration to Canada. Admittedly the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.2,70,760/- vide Ex.C-1 dated 12.04.2013 and Ex.C-2 dated 27.04.2013. There is a contract of agreement Ex.C-3 wherein the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The dispute of the complainant is that despite having received the agreed amount and despite his having submitted the requisite documents, the OP has not processed his case for getting visa for Canada and when the OP has been approached by the complainant for seeking refund of the deposited amount, the refusal on its part on both the counts i.e. processing of his case for visa for Canada and refund of the deposited amount, the complainant while alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has instituted the present complaint.

7.             The OP has admitted having received the agreed amount of Rs.2,70,760/- but in its reply plainly denied any outstanding amount and rather took a categoric stand that the amount has been returned to the complainant and, therefore, denied deficiency in service.

8.             In order to prove his case, the complainant has drawn our attention to Ex.C-1 and C-2 i.e. the receipts duly signed by the OP in lieu of the payments received. So much so he has attached a hand written note purported to be written by the OP i.e. Ex.C-4 wherein all the modalities and details have been mentioned by the OP. In response to the details mentioned in Ex.C-4, as per the complainant, he has submitted the requisite documents Ex.C-5 i.e. certificate of non registration of event of birth of the complainant issued by the Sub Registrar, Births & Deaths Panchkula and valuation report of the property of the complainant issued by M/s. Kutir Architect and Planner Ex.C-6. There is no rebuttal evidence by the OP in this regard. As per the complainant the OP has to refund his whole amount in the event of refusal or rejection of his case. In the present complaint, the question of refusal or rejection does not arise as the OP has never processed his case and presented to the concerned quarters for grant of visa. Therefore, non processing of the case of the complainant despite having received the full amount and the proper documents from him, the act of the OP in this regard is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Perusal of the record shows that the OP has not produced anything on record to show the steps taken by it in processing/presentation of the case of the complainant to the concerned authority. Therefore, the deficiency of service is writ large on the part of the OP once the OP has not rendered any service to the complainant as proved from record, withholding of deposited amount of the complainant is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. On both counts, the acts of the OP have caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated. 

9.             In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP to:

(a)    refund to the complainant Rs.2,70,760/- (Rs. Two lacs seventy thousand seven hundred sixty only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the dates of respective deposits till realization.

(b)    pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only)  on account of mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

April 24, 2015.

                                                                      (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Mrs. Sonia Bansal)

Member