Delhi

StateCommission

A/312/2015

WORLD WIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. RAJ PAL SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :19.02.2019

Date of Decision : 06.03.2019

First Appeal No.312/2015

In the matter of:

 

1. The Chairman & Managing Director,

WWICS Ltd., Mezzanine Floor,

Savitri Cinema Commercial Complex,

New Delhi-110048.

 

2. Branch Manager,

WWICS Ltd., Mezzanine Floor,

Savitri Cinema Commercial Complex,

New Delhi-110048.                             ………Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

Shri Raj Pal Singh,

S/o. Shri Avtar Singh,

R/o. B-213, Second Floor,

Lajpat Nagar-I,

New delhi-110014.

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to order dated 03.06.15 passed by District Forum in CC No.415/08. The District Forum directed OP/ appellant to refund Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of payment, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation.
2. The case of the complainant/ respondent herein was that he availed services of OPs for permanent resident in Australia in the month of May, 2007 and paid Rs.30,000/- as demanded by OPs. He entered into an agreement with the OP on 17.05.07. OP assured him that if for any reason, his PR was not completed, and then entire money would be refunded within 15 days. He fulfilled all the formalities and was asked by staff of OP to change certain things in application. He made the changes as desired. He made changes five times after wasting huge money in four months. In December, 2007 OPs informed him that his application could not be processed and his case would be sent to embassy due to certain changes made in PR rules in Australia. It assured that it would return the entire amount within 15 days as they were not in a position to provide professional services.
3. Complainant filed a case for refund of Rs.30,000/- with interest @18% per annum, Rs.50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. OP filed WS stating that complainant failed to submit complete documents as required under clause 2(a) of the contract. In the mean time Australia rules got changes and complainant became disqualified. It intimated to the complainant that it was ready to  refund Rs.25,000/- but complainant refused the same.  It further stated that complainant concealed fact that as matter of goodwill gesture, OP offered for study visa on behalf of complainant in advance diploma in hospitality management. Complainant failed to obtain the same. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to dealt the complaint as per clause 16 of the agreement which provided that the dispute would be resolved by the arbitration and also by court at Chandigarh.
5. The District Forum observed that so far as study visa is concerned, it was a separate issue which have nothing to do the complaint. It also came to the conclusion that there was no justification for OP to offer Rs.25,000/-.
6. I completely agree with the aforesaid lines of reasoning adopted by the District Forum. If there was no deficiency in service, it is not clear as to why OP offered Rs.25,000/- Now after offering Rs.25,000/-, it can not make a grievance against directions to pay Rs.30,000/- (just difference of Rs.5,000/-) . The District Forum has already reduced interest from 18% per annum to 9% per annum, compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,000/- cost of litigation from Rs.21,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. It is not clear as to what more the OP wants.
7. The objection of arbitration was turned down by the District Forum by referring to a decision of National Commission in DLF  vs. Mridul Estate Pvt. Ltd. III (2013) CPJ 439 where it was held that Consumer Fora is not bound to refer the dispute to arbitration.
8. Objection of territorial jurisdiction was discarded on the ground that OP had a branch office at DLF Centre, Savitri Cinema Complex, G.K.II, New Delhi where the agreement was signed and payment was received. I may add that agreement ousting the jurisdiction is not valid as per decision in National Commission in Polymax Plast (Pvt. ) Ltd. IV (2006) CPJ 172, FA No.442/10 titled as Abhishek vs. Unitech decided by National Commission on 18.02.11. In FA No.142/01 titled as Shanti vs. Ansal Housing decided on 11.04.02 NC held that such a clause is not valid as CPC is not applicable to proceedings before Consumer Protection Act. Similar view has been taken by U.T. Commission, Chandigarh in III (2017) CPJ 8.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
11. One copy of the order sent to District Forum for information.
12. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                   

   MEMBER (JUDICIAL)