For the Complainant                       -Piyali Pal Roy

For the OPs.                                      - Aninda Bhattacharya &RumpaGhosh  

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SMT SAHANA AHMED BASU, MEMBER

            The case of the complainants, in short, is that they met with Sri SumitChakraborty, representative of WWICS, for foreign immigration toAustralia and Canada. They also paid Rs.1,37,400/- to the O.Ps.on 21.05.2016 as registration fees vide receipt Nos. 101016118(File No. C16-01010660) and 101016107 (File No. C16-010010099) for Australia and Canada respectively. Complainants had been to the office of O.Ps. to know the status of their immigration. The branch head informed that Mr. SumitChakraborty suddenly left the organization and advised them to reinitiate the immigration process again undergoing IELTS. In such situation, the complainants wanted to refund their deposited amount of Rs.1,37,400/- and the Ops vide e-mail offered Rs,1,20,000/- instead of Rs.1,37,400/-.  Complainants have suffered mental agony, harassment  andfrustration on account of negligence on the part of the O.Ps.. In this regard all requests and persuasions including legal notice dated 28/11/2017 went in vain. Hence, the complainants approached this Forum with the instant complaint with a prayer directing the O.Ps. to refund Rs.1,37,400/- along with interest  at the rate of 12 percent p.a., Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost. 

            O.Ps have contested the case by filing W.V. raising preliminary objection and admitted regarding receive of Rs.1,37,400/- including service tax of Rs.17,400/-, which is non-refundable. Alternative proposal was given to the complainants regarding refund of Rs.1,20,000/- but the complainants  did not accept the alternative proposal. Complainants are responsible for the situation for which O.Ps. cannot be made liable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. for foreign immigration to Australia and Canada. In short, the O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

Decision with Reasons

            Admitted fact is that the complainants have availed the services of OP for preparation and submissions of immigration application for grant of permanent Visa for Australia and  Canada for himself and his wife. Initially, one Mr. Sumitchakraborty , the representative of the  OPs received Rs.1,37,400/- on 21.05.2016 vide receipt nos. 101016118 (File No c 16 – 01010660) and 101016107 (file no C 16 – 010010099) for Australia and Canada respectively as registration fees. But after that there was no intimation regarding the said immigration status from the OPs’ side and the complainants were informed by the head office of O.Ps. that the said Mr. SumitChakraborty “suddenly” left the organization and there was no trace of Mr. Chakraborty. The complainant tendered evidence on affidavit along with Annexure- A and C1.

The complainants are consumers as they availed services of O.Ps. on payment of Rs.1,37,400/-. This forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint because the contract of agreement was executed between the parties within the jurisdiction of this Forum.It has pecuniary jurisdiction as the relief claimed by the complainants is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. The complaint is within limitation as the cause of action arose to the complainants on 21.05.2016 when the OPs failed to provide promised services and such cause of action is continuing. The complainants have proved the payment of Rs.1,37,400/- vide Annexure A for providing to the O.Ps. for availing services.The complainants have also placed on record emails and approval letter of the O.Ps regarding refund back of the paid amount.

Against it O.Ps are also tendered evidence supported by an affidavit.     O.Ps submission is that the complainants had entered into two different contracts of engagement date 21.05.16 under Australia State Nomination Program – Regional Visa and another contract of engagement  dated 21.05.16 under Federal Skilled Worker Program – Express Entry , Canada . As per O.Ps the complainants paid only 1,20,000/-  and rest of Rs.17,400/- is service tax which is non-refundable and such amount was deposited to State Exchequer Account. But they failed to adjudicate a single piece of paper as an evidence which can prove that Rs.17,400/- was deposited to State Exchequer Account. So the O.Ps are bound to refund back the entire amount to the complainants as they failed to provide promised services.We have heard learned Advocate of both the parties and carefully gone through the documents on record.  The complainants have proved that they paid 1,37,400/- to the O.Ps for providing services to them. But the O.Ps failed to establish their claim regarding deposit of the amount of Rs.17400/- as service charge. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to refund of their amount i.e. Rs,1,37,400/- .

In view of our aforesaid discussion , we direct the O.Ps. to refund Rs.1,30,530/- (Rupees One lakh Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Thirty) only after deducting 5 percent from the total deposited amount of Rs.1,37,400/- towards administrative charges along with Rs.10,000/- for causing mental pain and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.

Liberty be given to the complainants to execute the order if the O.Ps. transgress the order.

Copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules.