BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                                                   Complaint Case No  : 974 of 2009

                                                              Date  of  Institution  :   14.07.2009

                                                 Date  of  Decision    :    15.12.2009

Amandeep Singh son of Sh.Ajit Pal Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Granga, Teshil Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab)

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     Way to West Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd., at present SCO No.128-129, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, U.T., India, through its Managing Director Sh.Bir Inder Singh Sandhu.

2]     Bir Inder Singh Sandhu, Managing Director, Way to West Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd., at present SCO No.128-129, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, U.T., India.

3]     Amarjit Singh, Director, Way to West Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd., at present SCO No.128-129, Second Floor,  Sector  34-A, Chandigarh, U.T., India.

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA         MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:        Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

Sh.Y.S.Saini, Advocate for OPs.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                In brief, the complainant in response to an advertisement of OP, visited them on 30.6.2004, applied for the post of Truck Driver in Manitoba (Canada) and paid Rs.50,000/- as registration fee.  An agreement (Ann.C-1) was also entered into between the parties on 4.7.2004.  It is averred that the OPs did not process his case for immigration to Canada for the said job and kept his registration money for about 5 years and misguided him to prepare & under go for IELTS though it was not required and also charged Rs.3000/- vide Ann.C-2 & C-3.  The complainant used to visit the OPs time to time to enquire about his immigration case but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  It is also averred that the OPs kept the complainant in dark and wasted his five years by not applying for the post for which they took the money.  However, the OPs ultimately sent the complainant a cheque of Rs.21,960/- (Ann.V-4), dated 6.4.2008 towards the refund of registration fee as against Rs.50,000/- paid to them on 30.6.2004.  The matter was taken up with OPs but to no avail.  A legal notice was also sent but that too was not replied.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant suffered mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss.

2]             OPs filed joint reply and took objection to the effect that the complaint is barred by time.  The receipt of Rs.50,000/- as registration fee for the appointment of Truck Driver and execution of agreement dated 4.7.2004 has been admitted.  However, it is stated that the complainant duly received the cheque of Rs.21,960/- dated 6.4.2009 as a full and final settlement with the OPs vide Ann.R-1 & R-2.  It is also stated that after the execution of agreement with complainant, a letter was received from Canada vide which the course of IELTS + S.Eng. was made mandatory for the candidates for the appointment of Truck Driver in Manitoba-Canada and as such the complainant was requested to pass IELTS + S.Eng. course in response to which he also deposited Rs.3000/- vide Ann.R-4 & R-5.  However, the complainant failed to pass the requisite course of English Language by getting the required IELTS 5 Band, which was mandatory for the appointment of Truck Driver in Canada and hence he lost his right to claim any relief but on humanitarian ground a sum of Rs.20,000/- plus Rs.1960/- as interest thereon (as agreed) was paid to the complainant towards full & final settlement.  Denying all other allegations of complainant including any deficiency in service or adopting unfair trade practice, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

5]             The contention of the Learned Counsel for the OP is that an agreement annexure C-1 between the parties was entered into on 4.07.04, when the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant but the present complaint was filed by him on 14.07.09 and the same is therefore barred by them.  We do not find any merit in this argument.  Infact as per the complainant he had been pursuing the matter with the OP who asked him in 2007 to clear IELTS.  The OP-1 received a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 9.05.07 vide annexure C-2 and Rs.1,500/- vide annexure C-3 dated 5.06.2007.  According to the complainant he was kept in the dark and ultimately the OP refunded to him Rs. 21,960/- vide a cheque dated 6.04.09. When calculated from 5.06.07 part payment of the amount of Rs.21,960/-  was within limitation which would further extend the period of limitation to 6.04.2011. The present complaint filed on 14.07.09 is therefore within time.

6]             It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the OP that as per the agreement dated 4.07.04 the complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs.20,000/- only out of the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by him because Section `D` of the agreement annexure C-1 provides that Rs.30,000/- is non refundable.  The primary question to be seen in this case is whether the OP has rendered any service to the complainant after he received the said amount of Rs.50,000/- and executed the agreement annexure C-1 dated 4.07.04.  The OP has not produced any document to suggest if any of the services mentioned in Section B of  annexure C-1 were rendered to him. The OP actually kept the complainant in dark for about 5 years and did not even send a simple application to the Government of Manitoba-Canada for the migration of the complainant as a truck driver.  The OP rather played with the career of the complainant who was kept in the dark for about 5 years hoping that the times would change and he would migrate to Canada for better future, but his hopes were dashed when the OPs did not do anything in this matter.  The Learned Counsel for the OPs has referred to annexure R-6 which they claim, was received vide which the OP was informed that the Government of Manitoba-Canada has changed the policy in view of which only those persons can be appointed as truck driver who qualify and pass the course of IELTS with 5.0 bands . This letter is dated 16.04.07, however the OP has been approached by the complainant on 4.07.04, and had the application of the complainant been sent by the OP immediately thereafter, the same could have been processed and even allowed before 16.04.07 when annexure R-6 was issued. It shows that instead of helping the complainant to migrate to Canada, the OP rather defeated the very purpose for which the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to him to render the service.  The OP is therefore guilty of deficiency of service and also adopting unfair trade policy whereby they receive the amount from the intending migrants but do not do anything as agreed between the parties and rather enjoy the benefits of the deposits made by the complainant and others.

7]             The Learned Counsel for the OP has also referred to annexure R-2 which is said to be a letter given by the complainant accepting the amount of Rs.21,960/- towards full and final settlement of his claim.  The complainant has denied having issued any such letter.  His contention is that his signatures were obtained on several papers and the OP have either forged this letter on a blank paper got signed from him or the signatures have been superimposed from some other document.  The OP has not produced the original receipt of which annexure R-2 is said to be a photocopy.  This document annexure R-2 is not dated as to on which date it was issued.  There is no letter written by the OP to the complainant prior to the issuance of this letter, if they had ever invited the complainant for a compromise. We are therefore not inclined to accept R-2 as an agreement regarding full and final settlement of the dispute.

8]             Otherwise also annexure R-2 is an example of unfair trade practice adopted by the OP. The amount of Rs.50,000/- was retained by the OP right from 2004 to 2009. The purpose for which the amount was given was not satisfied by the OP.  The promise of the engagement, that the OP would perform certain services, was not fulfilled by the OP.  On the other hand they had not returned the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant who was being feeded wrong reports about his migration.  Ultimately his hopes were dashed when he came to know that no application was moved by the OP for about 5 years and the OP rather produced a letter R-6 telling him that he was not eligible to migrate to Canada.  The minimum that OP was required to do was to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest but the same was not done by the OP even inspite of repeated requests and visits of the complainant to the office of the OP.  If under these circumstances the OP issued the cheque for Rs.21,960 and compelled the complainant to receive it as full and final settlement, the complainant is within his right to protest against the same.  Therefore it cannot be said to be full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant.

9]             Since the OP has been indulging in unfair trade practices, we are therefore of the opinion that he should be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for keeping him in the dark for about 5 years and not refunding his money  promptly not rendering any service and preparing the false documents like annexure R-2 to defeat his rights, and taking a false ground in this respect before this Forum.  He wasted the precious time of the complainant who had been hoping to migrate to Canada which dream was shattered by the OP. OP is also directed to refund the remaining amount of Rs.28,040/- alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.  The OP shall also pay interest @9% p.a. on the full amount of Rs.50,000/- from 4.07.04 to 6.04.09 and on the amount of Rs.28,040 /- w.e.f. 7.04.09 till the date of payment.  If the amount mentioned above is not paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, the OP would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.07.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.