Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/1139

WORLDWIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUDHA BABBAR - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision:24.10.2016

First Appeal No. 1139/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 16.05.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 199/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumX, UdyogSadan, C-22 & 23 Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy

Services Ltd.

A-31, 3^rd Floor, Rajouri Garden

Near Raja Garden Flyover

New Delhi-110027

Through its Authorized Representative

Sh. Bharat Lal                                                          .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Smt. SudhaBabbar

W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar

D/o Sh. T.L.Verma

Shop-cum-Residence No. 16

2^ND Floor, Malkaganj, Delhi-110007                               ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 16.05.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum X Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum directed the appellant herein to pay to the respondent/complainant an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Besidesthis, compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- was also awarded.
2.         In brief, respondent/complainant alleged in her complaint that she had entered into a contract of engagement with the appellant on 26.03.2007 for her immigration to Australia alongwith her family members. She paid Rs. 30,000/- and fulfilledall the formalities. She provided the requisite documents. Appellant/OP had assured her the completion of the entire process within a period of 18 months. Vide letter dated 25.07.2007 written by the Skills Assessor, Trade Recognition Australia, Australian Government Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, she was informed that she had been declared successful in the assessment outcome. Upon this, she paid 300 Australian Dollars in favour of DEWR, 2060 Australian Dollars in favour of DIAC, 1400 US Dollars in favour of GSCB. On 23.09.2008, she came to know that her application stood rejected on 05.09.2008. On 11.10.2008, she wrote a letter to the appellant/OP for refund of the amount of Rs. 2.3 lacs approx. It remained unreplied. On a complaint to the Indian High Commission Australia and Laurie-Fergusun (MIP) Australian Parliament House, she came to know that the appellant/OP was an unregistered immigration agent of India. Ld. District Forum in its orders observed that the appellant/OP did not appear in the court despite service of notice. He was, therefore,proceeded against ex-parte.
3.         On the basis of evidence led by the respondent herein/complainant, Ld. District Forum passed the orders which are impugned before this Commission.
4.         In its appeal, the appellant herein has not challenged the impugned orders on merits. He first of all preferred the Revision Petition in the Hon’ble National Commission (bearing Revision Petition No. 4445/2012) for setting aside the orders dated 16.05.2012. The Hon’ble National Commission directed the appellant herein to file a proper appeal before this Commission.
5.         In its present appeal, the appellant conceded that it had received the notice of the complaint issued to it by the Ld. District Forum somewhere in the month of August 2010. It was received by it at its office which is located in Rajouri Garden New Delhi. Vide said notice it was intimated that the next date of hearing in the Ld. District Forum was 22.09.2010. Contention of the appellant is that the said notice got misplaced. It was for this reason that it could not appear before the Ld. District Forum and was proceeded against ex-parte. It came to know of the impugned orders when the respondent/complainant approached it with a copy of the orders.
6.         On the basis of the abovesaid spectrum facts, the appellant herein has prayed for remanding the matter to the District Forum with a liberty to file his written statement and contest the complaint.
7.         In her reply the respondent/complainant referred to the submission of the appellant to the effect that it had closed its Greater Kailash New Delhi Office on 18.07.2010 and shifted to Rajouri Garden New Delhi thereafter. In other words, the complaint stood filed when the appellant was operating from its Greater Kailash New Delhi office. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the appellant that he was not served with the notice of the complaint. Admittedly he received the notice of the complaint somewhere in August 2010. He also knew that the matter was listed in the District Forum for 22.09.2010. Even in the case of misplacement of the notice,appellant ought have appeared in the District Forum on or around 22.09.2010. It ought have contacted the complainant to find out further details, if any. No efforts were made by the appellant for defending itself before the District Forum. Now it does not lie in his mouth that he was taken by surprise after seeing the orders dated 16.05.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appeal bearing No. 1139/2012 is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.
8.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
9.         FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)​