Punjab

Faridkot

CC/24/37

Meena Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vast Immigration Solution s - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               37 of 2024

Date of Institution:   06.03.2024

Date of Decision :    28.10.2024

 

Meena Rani aged about 33 years wife of Vaneet Sharma, resident of Ward No.11, Near Ramleela Ground, Opposite Shastri Mandir, Jaitu, District Faridkot.

...........Complainant

Versus

 

 

1. Vast Immigration Solutions Top Floor, SCO 457-458, Sector 35 C, Chandigarh now, SCO 96, Top Floor, 17-D, Sector-17, Chandigarh 160017 through its Manager, Proprietor/Owner/Responsible Person.
2. Kulvir Singh @ Kaura Manager/Proprietor/Owner/Responsible Person of Vast Immigration Solutions, Top Floor, SCO 457-458, Sector 35 C, Chandigarh now, SCO 96, Top Floor, 17-D, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017.

…OPs

 

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Quorum: Sh Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              OPs Exparte,

 

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)

ORDER

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act against OP-1 and 2 seeking directions to them to refund the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-with interest and for further them to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment suffered by complainant and Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses.

cc no.- 37 of 2024

2                                                        Briefly stated the case of complainant is that on assurance of Ops that they can send the complainant at Canada on permanent residency status visa for earning her livelihood, complainant paid them Rs.6,50,000/-alongwith copy of her passport, aadhaar card and passport size photographs. At that time Ops also assured complainant that if they could not send her to Canada on permanent residency status visa, then they would refund her entire amount with interest and without any deduction. OPs also assured complainant that she would duly receive her permanent residency status visa within 90 days, but she did not receive any visa. Complainant approached OPs several times, but they kept putting her off on one pretext or the other. Complainant also sent e-mails to OPs requesting them to send her abroad, but all in vain. Now, OPs have flatly refused to arrange for the permanent residency status visa and also refused to refund the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-received from her. Even legal notice served upon by complainant to OPs through her counsel, also served no purpose. All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and it has caused huge harassment and mental agony to her. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.03.2024, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                       Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was issued to OPs, but it received back with report left without address. Thereafter, on request of complainant, service was effected through publication, but despite publication, no body appeared in the Commission on behalf of OPs on

cc no.- 37 of 2024

date fixed either in person or through counsel to contest the allegations levelled by complainant. After long waiting till 4.00 pm, when nobody made presence before the Commission on behalf of OPs, then, vide order dated 15.07.2024, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

5                                                              Proper opportunities was given to complainant party to prove their case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in exparte evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.       

6                                                            As OPs are exparte and there is no rebuttal from OPs’ side, therefore, we have heard the ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record.

7                                                                 To prove her pleadings, complainant has placed on record invoice dated 25.10.2021 that proves the fact that she paid Rs.25,000/-to Ops as Consultation Fees and Ex C-3 is invoice dated 24.11.2021 that justifies the point that she paid Rs.6,25,000/-to OPs. Meaning thereby, complainant has paid Rs.6,50,000/-to OPs. Further legal notice Ex C-4 alongwith postal receipts Ex C-5 and Ex C-6 further prove the contentions of complainant that despite repeated requests OPs, neither arranged permanent residency status visa for complainant nor refunded the huge amount of Rs.6,50,000/-paid by complainant to OPs. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated her pleadings and made request to this Commission for redressal of her grievance.

8                                           It is evident and clear from the pleadings and documents placed on record by complainant that complainant has paid Rs.6,50,000/-to OPs but OPs failed to keep their promise of sending the complainant abroad. They could neither arrange permanent residency status visa

cc no.- 37 of 2024

for complainant nor have refunded the amount paid by complainant to them. It is observed that complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove her pleadings and all documents placed on record by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

9                 From the above discussion and keeping in view documents placed on record by complainant, this Commission is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case and also there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As Consumer Protection Act is meant for the protection of rights of genuine consumers, therefore, to redress the grievance of complainant, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-paid by complainant to OPs with interest at the rate of 6% per anum from the date of institution of present complaint till final realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her alongwith Rs.2,000/-for litigation expenses.

10                Compliance of this order be made within 45 days of receipt of the copy of this order.

11                    Complaint case could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

12                       Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 28.10.2024                         (Param Pal Kaur)                   (Rakesh Kumar Singla)

                                                         Member                      President