BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint  No.109 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Instt. 19.03.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision: 16.07.2019

Charu Verma w/o Shri Rajinder Verma R/o H. No.6-A, Ekta Nagar, PH-2, Ramamandi, Jalandhar.

                                                                             ..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Sapna Worldwide Immigration Services Ltd., Sahota Complex, Opp. Residency Hotel, Near Canara Bank, Bus Stand, Jalandhar.

2.       Ajit Pal Singh, Immigration Consultant, Member of ICCRC-CRCIC, Sapna Worldwide Immigration Services Ltd., Sahota Complex, Opp Residency Hotel, Near Canara Bank, Bus Stand, Jalandhar. Also at:- 26, Mandalay Drive, Winnipeg, MB R2X2Z2. Canada.

3.       Gurpiyar Singh, Manager Sapna Worldwide Immigration Services Ltd., Sahota Complex, Opp Residency Hotel, Near Canara Bank, Bus Stand, Jalandhar.

                                                                       ….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh              (President)

                              Smt. Jyotsna                      (Member)

Present:        Sh. JPS Kohli, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

                             Sh. S. S. Turna, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

Order

                             Karnail Singh (President)

1.                 This complaint has been presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is the Immigration consultant company and is engaged in providing services such as Visitor Visa, Student Visa, Work Visa, Business & Permanent Resident Visa having its branch at Jalandhar, Chandigarh, Delhi and Nepal. The business of the OP No.1 is being run & look after by the OP No.2 acting for and on behalf of the OP No.1. The OP No.3 is the branch office of OP No.1. The complainant came into contact with the OPs at Jalandhar office through OP No.2 in the month of October, 2014. The complainant met the OP No.2 in the connection with professional consultancy services provided by him for Immigration to Canada under skilled immigration category. That the OP No.3 after consultation with the OP No.2 told the complainant after evaluation and preliminary assessment of her educational credentials and work experience that her case is a fit case for permanent immigration to Canada with family under skilled immigration. That the OP No.2 represented that he is member of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council and is legally authorized overseas licensed immigration and citizenship consulting and international student advising professional. He further asserted that he is an expert in providing services with respect of preparation, submission of application and in obtaining Job Offer for permanent residence at Canada. The complainant being innocent, was lured, entangled and trapped in the web led by OPs. The complainant relied upon the assurance that the assessment conducted by the OPs that she was eligible for grant of immigration in Canada under skilled category agreed to apply for permanent residency in Canada with family through the OPs. The OP No.3, the representative of OPs No.1 and 2, posted as a Manager at Jalandhar Office, had been dealing with the complainant from time to time and assured the complainant to secure the immigration/Visa for permanent residency with family to Canada and had also assured the best of the services of the OPs.

2.                That the complainant as per the advice of the OP No.2 joined the classes of IELTS after making a payment of fee of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant also paid Rs.8500/- on account of IELTS registration fees to IDB IELTS conducting test center and appeared for English Language test conducted by IDB on 13.12.2014, vide candidate No.154278 and secured overall seven bands. The OP No.2 signed the retainer agreement with the complainant on 15.01.2015 at Jalandhar office for making an application to get the complainant and her family members a permanent residence in Canada. To assist the complainant in the preparation and submission of her application. To assist the complainant with respect to preparation for any interview granted in consideration of her application for a total of CAD $ 7000/- plus disbursements as per mentioned conditions with respect to the complainant’s application for permanent immigration to Canada. That out of CAD $ 7000 a sum of CAD $ 2000 plus GST and PST were to be paid by the complainant on the date of signing of the agreement to complete MPNP application or approval of express entry and other services like temporary resident visa. A sum of CAD $2500 Plus GST and PST were agreed to be paid by the complainant on receipt of MPNP selection certificate or on approval of express entry. That balance CAD $ 2500 plus GST and PST were to be paid when the OP No.2 would be applying for permanent resident after the fulfillment of first two conditions.

3.                That the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-, vide cheque No.3380 in favour of OP No.1 as initial amount on signing of the retainer agreement on 15.01.2015. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.17,340/-, vide cheque No.4352 drawn on ICICI Bank, Jalandhar in favour of OP No.1 an amount to equal to CAD $340 on account of fees for the evaluation of educational credential from World Education Services, a Canadian authorized evaluation for the recognition of international education qualifications as per the education standard of Canada. That the complainant submitted all the documents required to process the file for immigration at the time of signing of the agreement as demanded by the OPs. The complainant remained always in touch with the OPs and the complainant was conveyed that her case will be sent to the appropriate authority for assessment at the earliest. Then the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 13.03.2015, vide cheque No.525022 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Jalandhar in favour of OP No.3, but the OP failed to get the education evaluation done till date and have never paid the fees to the WES for evaluation of credentials. That the non payment of fees by the OPs tantamount to deficiency in service and cheating, breach of trust with the complainant. The complainant kept on visiting regularly the OP No.3 and also called upon OP No.2 to enquire about the status of her case, but they kept on putting off the complainant on false pretexts that the case was under process. Ultimately the OP No.2 informed the complainant in May, 2015 that the Canadian Immigration authorities had changed the immigration policy and as per the changed policy, the complainant was not eligible for grant of permanent residency in Canada. Therefore, the OP No.2 will have to arrange a letter of offer from a sponsor from Canada in order to make the complainant’s case eligible for immigration to Canada. That the OP No.2 demanded an additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to arrange the sponsored. The complainant had no option and bowed down to the illegal and unwarranted demand of the OP No.2 and paid Rs.4,00,000/- in cash against receipt No.130 dated 02.05.2015. Thereafter, the OP No.2 told the complainant that now he wanted to apply in Quebec for permanent resident visa and also suggested the complainant to learn French language and accordingly, the complainant joined French Language Course with a private teacher and paid Rs.20,000/-. Then in the month of December, 2016, the OP No.2 guided the complainant to do IELTS again as the validity of the IELTS exams dated 13.12.2014 has expired. The OP No.2 conveyed the complainant that he has almost arranged an offer letter and he will file a case immediately on receipt of latest IELTS score from the complainant. The complainant relying on the false pretexts of OP No.2 again joined the coaching class and paid Rs.10,000/- as fees and got 6.5 bands overall. But the OP failed to provide the application form number and as such, the complainant requested the OP No.3 to refund the money, to the tune of Rs.5,17,000/-, which has taken from the complainant, but OP flatly refused and as such, necessity arose to file the instant complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- balance payment out of the total amount Rs.5,17,000/- and further OPs be directed to reimburse the expenses of Rs.92,000/- incurred by the complainant solely on directions of the OP No.2 i.e. on IELTS tests and be also directed to pay interest of Rs.2,15,000/- approximately @ 18% on the amount of Rs.4,67,000/- hold by the OP for the period 02.05.2015 till 26.10.2017 and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4.                     Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has concealed the true and real facts from this Forum. In reality, the complainant has already received Rs.2,67,000/- from OP No.3 Gurpiyar Singh on 26.10.2017. After this, she gave undertaking that there is no outstanding balance towards Gurpiyar Singh OP No.3. The complainant herself shown that she has received entire amount handed over to the OPs No.1 and 3 and there is no due and now the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Similarly, the complainant also received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 25.09.2017 and executed a receipt in favour of the OP and as such, the complainant under pressure has already received a sum of Rs.4,17,000/- from the complainant. It is further averred that the elements involved in the complaint requires a detailed examination as well as cross examination of the witnesses and as such, the matter cannot be appropriately adjudicated before this Forum rather it should be got decided from the Civil Court. It is further averred that the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass the OP and even the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that the OP is providing services for getting a visa of Canada and it is clear that visa is depend upon the qualification of the candidate and other circumstances of the complainant and similarly availability of the Canadian Government regarding needs for future. In the present complaint, there is no allegation upon the OP that there is any deficiency in service of the OPs and as such, the instant complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached for getting services for immigration of Canada and further submitted that the OP never assured for Visa to the complainant, being reason the OP is only providing services to the complainant for getting Visa. It is further admitted that a retainer agreement was executed between the complainant and OP. The other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

5.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence.

6.                Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OW/A along with some documents Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely with the able assistance of both the counsel for the parties.

8.                From the very outset, it is not in dispute that the complainant approached to the OPs for getting services to assist for permanent resident visa of Canada and it is also admitted that the complainant paid the requisite charges to the OP, but the dispute arises only when the complainant considered that the OPs are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other for not providing the file number, whereby process of the immigration case of the complainant has been initiated and then the instant complaint filed with numerous allegations that the OP gave false allurement to the complainant, whereas virtually the OP has not sent the case of the complainant for immigration purpose to Canada Government.

9.                We have gone through the contents of the complaint as well as reply of the OPs and find that the complainant alleged that he paid total amount of Rs.5,17,000/- as alleged in Para No.10 of the complaint, out  of which as per version of the OP, some amount was obtained from the complainant as GST and other taxes and further alleged that the entire amount of Rs.4,17,000/- has been paid to the complainant and nothing remained due towards the OP rather the complainant herself gave undertaking that she received the entire complaint and nothing remained due towards the OP No.3. Admittedly the receipt produced on the file by the complainant herself Ex.C-8 denoted that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was received by the complainant on 25.09.2017 from Gurpiyar Singh after giving a receipt to the OP No.3 and the said receipt itself established that the complainant has received Rs.1,50,000/- and other receipt produced on the file by the complainant herself Ex.C-9, whereby she received a sum of Rs.2,67,000/- on 26.10.2017 and in this receipt the complainant categorically narrated as under:-

“After this I do not have any outstanding balance to Gurpiyar Singh”                                                                                                       There is no doubt that Gurpiyar Singh is OP No.3 and he is working for and on behalf of the OP No.1 also. If the complainant herself settled the matter with the OP by giving a writing that nothing due towards the OP, then how the complainant can reagitate again for any other amount, when the settled amount has been already received. So, from this angle, we are of the opinion that the matter has been already amicably settled between the parties and accordingly, the complainant received the entire amount and thus, we do not find any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and therefore the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.  

10.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                 Jyotsna                                Karnail Singh

16.07.2019                        Member                              President