DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

(1)

Neeraj Singh, aged 29 years s/o Sh. Shamsher Singh r/o 59/2 Kamal Vihar, Near Bashirpura, Backside Shiv Mandir, Jalandhar.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Mr. Vivek Kapoor son of Shri Raman Kapoor, resident of H.No.620, Sector 17, Panchkula.

---Opposite Party

(2)

Sunil Kumar aged 22 years s/o Sh. Gurdial Chand resident of V.P.O. Chohal, District Hoshiarpur.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Vivek Kapoor son of Shri Raman Kapoor, resident of H.No.620, Sector 17, Panchkula.

---Opposite Party

(3)

Gurdeep Kumar Kaushal aged 52 years son of Shri Jagan Nath Kaushal, resident of village and Post Office Malupota, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr).

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Vivek Kapoor son of Shri Raman Kapoor, resident of H.No.620, Sector 17, Panchkula.

---Opposite Party

(4)

Dharminder Pal, aged 33 years son of Shri Gurmail Chand, resident of Village and Post Office Chohal, District Hoshiarpur.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Vivek Kapoor son of Shri Raman Kapoor, resident of H.No.620, Sector 17, Panchkula.

---Opposite Party

(5)

Rakesh Kumar, aged 43 years son of Shri Joginder Pal, resident of Sancholi Bazar, House No.61/4, Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr).

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Vivek Kapoor son of Shri Raman Kapoor, resident of H.No.620, Sector 17, Panchkula.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Rajeshwar Singh, Adv. for the complainant

                        Sh. Davinder Lubana, Adv. proxy for Sh. M.P.S. Bindra, Adv. for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           By this order we propose to dispose of the abovementioned five consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.

2.                           The facts are culled out from C.C. No.115 of 2011-Neeraj Singh Vs. Mr. Vivek Kapoor.

3.                           Sh. Neeraj Singh, has filed his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

          “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lacs) to the complainant with interest from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. The opposite party may kindly be directed to hand over the original passport to the complainant which is in his custody.  The complainant may kindly be granted any further or such relief to which he may be found entitled to from the facts of the present complaint.”

                   In brief, the case of the complainant is that he desired to go abroad for work. So he approached the opposite party who was engaged in the business of immigration consultancy.  The opposite party assured the complainant that he (opposite party) would arrange a job for him (complainant) in Canada and for visa in case the complainant paid him a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- as fee.  The complainant agreed to pay the same and paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- in advance on 7.10.2009 on which date an agreement (C-1) was also executed between the parties which inter alia provided as under :-

(i)                that the opposite party would arrange a job for the complainant at Canada

(ii)             the opposite party shall arrange for a visa and work permit for 16 months at Canada. 

(iii)           If the opposite party failed to do so before 1.2.2010, then he shall refund the entire amount taken by him from the complainant

(iv)           The complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to the opposite party as his fee for sending him abroad on work permit and arranging job for him.  Out of the same he paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- on 7.10.2009 as advance money and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of medical examination before departure from India and also agreed to hand over the original passport and other documents required by the opposite party for processing his case for going to Canada.

                   It has further been pleaded by the complainant that in the month of February 2010, the opposite party called him at Chandigarh and took the original passport from him. The opposite party also got him medically examined.

          According to the complainant, the opposite party told the complainant that he (complainant) would get the work permit for 24 months instead of 16 months. So the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- more, in addition to the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- demanded earlier, for the extended period of work permit.  He also demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of medical examination and fee for processing the application for going to Canada. 

                   It has further been pleaded that after some time the complainant again visited the opposite party, who showed the photocopy of visa to him.  Thereafter, he paid another sum of Rs.2,90,000/- in addition to the sum of Rs.1,60,000/- paid by him earlier.  The opposite party further told the complainant that he would be informed about the date of departure to Canada very soon.  Thereafter, the complainant waited for about a week but did not get any response from the opposite party.    Ultimately, he asked for refund of the amount but the opposite party failed to do so.

                   Thus, according to the complainant, failure on the part of the opposite party to arrange for a job and visa for the complainant, despite having received the entire fee, or to refund the amount amounts to deficiency in service. 

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed.

                   In the other consumer complaints also, the facts are almost similar, except that the amount deposited and date of deposit is different.

4.                 In the written statement filed by the opposite party it has been averred that he is not engaged in the business of immigration consultancy.  According to the opposite party, he was employed with Rajesh Sharma and Kanwar Cheema, Advocates, practicing at District Courts, Chandigarh.  It has further been pleaded that the above said advocates told him about their expertise in settling the desirous people abroad.  They employed him to assist them in their above said job.  According to the opposite party, the aforesaid Rajesh Sharma and Kanwar Cheema had further association with Sandeep Kapoor, Vishal Romi and Dalipa Ram.  The opposite party has denied having executed agreement (C-1) with the complainant for sending him to Canada on work permit for a period of 16 months.  According to the opposite party, he came to know about the alleged agreement entered into between him and the complainant on receiving summons from the police authorities on the complaints made by the present complainant and some other persons.  However, it has been pleaded that the advocates with whom he was employed got his signatures on some papers.  The opposite party has also denied having received a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and a further sum of Rs.2,90,000/- from the complainant.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has concealed material fact that he alongwith some other persons made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime)(South), New Delhi.  It has further been averred that a false and frivolous case bearing F.I.R. No.51 dated 8.7.2010 was also registered on the basis of a complaint made by Pawan Kumar and Vijay Kumar at P.S. Nangal, which was duly investigated.  The Investigating Officer (I.O) found the opposite party innocent.  It has further been averred that the complainant has already received a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from Sh. Dilipa Ram.  It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party in preliminary objection No.4 of his written statement has admitted that during the course of employment he was handed over certain amounts which have already been refunded to Sh. Dalipa Ram.  Thus, according to the opposite party, as he never agreed to send the complainant abroad on work permit and never received the amount, so the complaint against him is absolutely false and deserves dismissal.

                    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           Annexure C-1 is the agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party. This document bears the signature of the opposite party. The complainant in his affidavit has deposed that the above said agreement was executed between him and the opposite party and has also deposed that the opposite party had agreed to send him abroad on work permit for a period of 16 months and to arrange job for him at Canada.  The averment of the complainant to the effect that he had paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as advance money is corroborated from clause 2 of the said agreement wherein the ‘first party’ (who is the opposite party in the present case) admitted having received the same in cash from the second party (who is the complainant in the present case) on 7.10.2009.  However, the complainant has not placed on record any document/receipt to prove the fact that the remaining amount, as alleged by him in the complaint, has also been paid by him to the opposite party. 

6.                           From the agreement (C-1) itself it is also proved that the opposite party had agreed to send the complainant to Canada on work permit for a period of 16 months and the opposite party had also agreed to arrange for visa, job and residence for the complainant at Canada.  Admittedly, the opposite party has failed to do so.

7.                           On the other hand, the case of the opposite party is that neither he is engaged in the business of immigration consultancy nor he had agreed to send the complainant abroad.  The opposite party has alleged that Sh. Rajesh Sharma and Sh. Kanwar Chema, advocates had got his signatures on some papers.  The opposite party has not specifically pleaded anywhere that the agreement (C-1) does not bear his signatures.  As there is no specific denial of signatures on Annexure C-1, so it will be presumed that the opposite party has admitted his signatures on agreement (C-1).  The whole stand of the opposite party in the written statement seems to be contradictory. At one place the opposite party has denied of having received a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from the complainant whereas at the other place it has been averred that he has paid some amount to Dalipa Ram who has refunded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant.  However, no document has been placed on record to prove that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- has ever been paid to the complainant. Even the agreement (R-3) dated 19.3.2010 placed on record by the opposite party, executed between Dalipa Ram and the present opposite party, talks about the settlement of dispute inter se Dalipa Ram and the opposite party only.  This document does not absolve the opposite party of his liability as the agreement (C-1) exclusively was executed between the complainant and the opposite party. 

8.                           Further the ld. Counsel for the opposite party by relying upon the report (R-2) of Police Chief Detective, District Roopnagar has vehemently argued that during the course of enquiry the opposite party was not found guilty and the deal was found to be settled by one Dalipa Ram who had received the amount. To our mind, this enquiry report deals with a complaint filed by Vijay Kumar and Pawan Kumar in case No.51 dated 8.7.2010 registered under Section 406/420 of IPC at Nangal and there is no proof that the conclusions of this enquiry report in any manner relate to the agreement (C-1).  The said report has no bearing on this case.

9.                           Thus from the above discussion, it is apparent that the opposite party had agreed to send the complainant abroad (Canada) on work permit for 16 months and had accepted the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as advance. Admittedly, the complainant has not been sent abroad to Canada by the opposite party nor the amount has been proved to have been refunded to the complainant.  Thus, the aforesaid acts of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed as under :-

(i)                To return the original passport to the complainant;

(ii)             to refund the amount charged from the complainant as per clause 2 of the agreement (Annexure C-1);

(iii)           to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

(iv)            to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

11.                       This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No.(ii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment and amount at Sr.No.(iii) shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of order till payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

12.                       Similar directions are passed in the other connected consumer complaints mentioned above. 

13.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13.09.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER