Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/107/2021

M/s More Visa Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vinod Kumar Bhatia - Opp.Party(s)

Maninder Arora, Parminder Singh & Sahil Chadda Adv.

12 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	107 of 2021
Date of Institution	26.11.2021
Date of Decision	12.08.2022

M/s More Visa Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd., Office No.1259/A, 1^st Floor Road No.36, Jubilee Hills Land Mark - Below Eat India Company Restaurant Hyderabad – 500033 Telangana through its authorized signatory Ms. Sujatha Kanthan.

    …..Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Vinod Kumar Bhatia Aged 31 years, S/o Jagdish Chand, R/o House No.4731/2, Sector 70, Phase 7, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                                      …..Respondent/Complainant              

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:   None for the appellant.

 Sh. Atul Arya, Advocate for the respondent/complaint.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.09.2021, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint, with the following directions to the Opposite Party No.1: -

“(i)   to refund the amount of ₹59,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 27.02.2018 till realization.

(ii)   to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

(iii)  to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.   This order be complied with by OP-1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.”

 

2. However, the name of Opposite Party No.2 i.e. M/s More Visa Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh was ordered to be deleted by the learned District Commission from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 14.01.2021.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant intended to immigrate to Canada as early as possible and become permanent resident there.  It was stated that in the month of June, 2017 after going through advertisement of the Opposite Parties, the complainant approached them and apprised them about his intentions. It was further stated that on 23.09.2017 an agreement of services was signed between the complainant and the Opposite Parties for total consideration of ₹50,000/- excluding PRR fees, but, as per the complainant he paid ₹71,180/-. It was further stated that the on 17.02.2018, Opposite Parties sent a pre-registration report intimating profile of the complainant was positive for Canada Express Entry under Federal Skilled Worker program (FSW).  It was further stated that as per Opposite Parties, complainant secured 67 out of 100 under FSW and 971 out of 1200 points under Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS).  It was further stated that the complainant obtained only 371 points under CRS and Opposite Parties added 600 points which were in case of any nomination by Province or Arranged Employment. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties informed the complainant that the application would be submitted under Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) to obtain more points, but, did not disclose that it would long time, even years.
4. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties submitted the profile through application on 12.04.2018 and application under PNP was submitted at the province of Edward Island on 04.06.2018, but no Invitation To Apply (ITA) was received by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant became suspicious and when he checked the status, he was surprised that the application expired on 21.02.2019. It was further stated that when the complainant confronted the Opposite Parties, he was told that the application would be again submitted on 21.03.2019.  It was further stated that again the Opposite Parties did not check the processing of the application and when the complainant checked, he found the application again got expired on 21.09.2019. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were duty bound under the agreement to guide the complainant properly and provide correct services.  It was further stated that upon enquiry the complainant came to know that he was not at all eligible to receive any ITA, but, the Opposite Parties in order to deceive him stated that his profile was positive. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to fulfil their part of agreement and the complainant requested for refund, but, the same was declined by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 16.11.2019. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
5. Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party No.1 seeking its version of the case, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
6. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Party No.1, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Party No.1.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and respondent in person, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. In this case, this Commission finds that the appellant had not performed his task of submitting the respondent’s application. The respondent obtained only 371 points under Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) and the respondent added 600 points which were in case of any nomination by Province/Arranged Employment. The appellant submitted the respondent’s application under PN Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) at the province of Edward Island on 04.06.2018, but no ‘Invitation To Apply’ (ITA) was received and when the respondent checked the status of his application, he was shocked to know that his application expired on 21.02.2019. As per the agreement signed between the parties, the appellants were duty bound to guide the respondent properly and provide correct services, in which they have failed. The appellants had also taken sizeable amount of fee for doing the same. Further, it is also noticed that the appellant twice wrongly submitted the application form of the respondent which caused immense mental and physical harassment to the respondent. This Commission, therefore, is of the opinion that the learned District Commission has rightly passed the order of allowing the complaint partly and directing the appellants to refund the amount received from the respondent alongwith 9% interest p.a. and also to pay compensation and ligation charges. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

12.08.2022

      

 

                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-            

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                         

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

GP