DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                    Consumer Complaint No.448 of 2016

                                         Date of institution:  29.07.2016                                                Date of decision   :  05.07.2017

Haneef Kumar son of Raj Kumar resident of H.No.269/7, Bhim Rao Colony, Banga, SBS Nagar, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                ….Complainant

                                Versus

The World Key Overseas Solution Pvt. Ltd. Head Office at SCF 48, Top Floor, Phase 3B2, Sector 60, Mohali 160059 through its Director/Authorised Signatory.

                                                                …..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member         

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Jaswinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                OP ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant Haneef Kumar had filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

                The complainant approached the OPs for going abroad. The OP allured the complainant that it is best in sending persons abroad and have valid license from Emigration Department i.e. from Protector General of Emigrant under Ministry of Overseas and Indian Affairs.  The complainant alongwith his father visited the OP on 02.09.2015 and the OP informed that they have received intimation for requirement of workers at Toronto Canada and if the complainant is willing then the OP can apply for work visa for the complainant. It was assured by the OP that the work visa would be sanctioned within 90 to 155 days and the complainant would board the flight within 155 days. The OP informed the complainant that expenses for the work visa would be Rs.3.00 laks. The OP assured that if it failed to get sanctioned the work visa within 90-15 days, the amount would be refunded. The complainant on 02.09.2015 paid Rs.20,540/- in cash to the OP for registration of his name with the company.  The complainant submitted his documents of qualification and other relevant proofs on 18.09.2015 and also paid Rs.2,95,900/- to the OP  receipt whereof was issued by the OP. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith his father visited the OP numbers of times but neither the working visa of the complainant has been got sanctioned nor any satisfactory reply of the OP has been received and the amount has not been refunded to him. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.2,95,900/- + Rs.20,540/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt; to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss and   Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Notice sent to the OP was delivered upon it on 05.08.2016 but none appeared for it. Hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.09.2016.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of receipts Ex.C-1 and C-2.       

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on the assurance given by the OP, the complainant has paid them Rs.20,540/-  and Rs.2,95,900/-  on 02.09.2015 and 18.09.2015. However, after lapse of assured time, neither the work visa has been arranged by the OP nor his amount has been refunded to him. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service and thus the complaint be allowed and the complainant be got refunded his deposited amount alongwith suitable compensation.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the counsel for the complainant. The complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C-1 and C-2 to show that he has made payment to the OP for the work visa to Canada. However, inspite of payment of the settled amount the OP could not arrange the visa. Ultimately the complainant requested for refund of the amount and the OP did not make refund to complainant.  The OP has chosen not to appear and to contest the complaint despite delivery of notice upon it. Non appearance of the OP despite knowledge amounts to admission of the averments of the complaint on its part which shows that the OP has nothing to say in this regard.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is allowed against the OP with the direction to refund to the complainant Rs.20,540/- and Rs.2,95,900/-  alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. on 02.09.2015 and 18.09.2015 respectively till actual payment.  The OP should also pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 05.07.2017    

                                        (A.P.S.Rajput)                                          President

 (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member