Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/119/2017

Arshleen Grewal - Complainant(s)

Versus

World Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajnish Kumar Vashishat, Adv.

04 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	:	119 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	02.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	04.05.2017

 

Arshleen Grewal wife of Sh. Amandeep Singh Chhabra r/o House No. 617, 1st Floor, Saini Vihar, Phase II, Baltana, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

…Appellant/Complainant

 

V e r s u s

1. World Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali through its Managing Director.
2. WWICS, SCO No. 2415-16, Sector 22-C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Office Manager.

               ....Respondents/Opposite parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh.Rajnish Kumar Vashishat, Advocate for the           appellant.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                This appeal is directed against an order dated 06.02.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum only) vide which, it dismissed consumer complaint bearing No.723 of 2015, filed by the complainant (now appellant). Alongwith appeal, an application was also filed by the appellant, seeking condonation of delay of 02 days, in filing the appeal.  

2.         In her complaint, it was stated by the appellant that to get permanent resident visa for Canada, she applied to the respondents, and made payment of an amount Rs.84,270/- plus 800 U.S. dollars, in advance, as per their (respondents) requirement. She was assured that the respondents have already started her process, to get permanent residency in Canada and they will complete the documentation, within 15 days and she will be intimated thereafter. After waiting for some time, when she enquired about her case, she was shocked to hear that her case was still not processed by the respondents. Documents were again submitted by the appellant, on 26.11.2014 and, thereafter, again on 07.12.2014, as demanded by the respondents.
3.         Further, she also again deposited $1100, as processing fee of Canadian Embassy through demand draft. On 22.12.2014, respondent no.2 called her to its office, for signing the immigration documents and other formalities for sending to Canadian immigration Department. She found number of mistakes in her immigration application, prepared by respondent no.2. Ultimately, after rectifying those mistakes, documents were sent to the quarter concerned, on 23.12.2014. It was stated that on account of delay aforesaid, case of the appellant was rejected by the Canadian Embassy vide letter dated 16.03.2015. Thereafter, the appellant demanded refund of amount paid, which was refused by the respondents. Compelled under the circumstances, she filed consumer complaint aforesaid, before the Forum.
4.         Reply was filed by the respondents. Factual matrix of the case was admitted. It was stated that to process claim of the appellant, to get permanent residence in Canada, she entered into two contracts of engagement, one with the respondents and other with the M/s GSBC, Dubai, which is a separate entity. Her case was properly processed by providing professional services and no assurance was ever given to her, that she will positively get visa to shift to Canada. Her case was sent to the Competent Authority for process, however, it was rejected on account of heavy rush of similar applicants and capping of such like immigrants. It was further stated that as per terms and conditions of the Agreement, the appellant was not eligible for refund. The remaining allegations were denied, being false.   
5.         The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their case, before the Forum.
6.         The Forum on perusal of the evidence on record and pleadings of the contesting parties, dismissed the complaint, by observing as under:-

“It is evident from record that the complainant was assessed as per information given by her in the assessment form Exhibit R-1. On the basis of said information the complainant was found to be eligible for grant of permanent resident visa to Canada. There is no denying the fact that the complainant did hire the services of the OPs for his immigration to Canada vide agreement R-2 after requisite fee as per agreement. However, the case of the complainant was rejected.  The plea of the OPs are that  the case of the complainant was not accepted due to heavy rush and there was capping with regard to similar cases of other immigrants filed from different countries and  as such the case of the complainant was returned back by the immigration authority. In our opinion the OPs had pursued the case of the complainant properly but the same was returned by the immigration authority of Canada due to the capping mentioned above and his case was returned on this account for which the OPs cannot be held liable.   Thus, we find no deficiency on the part of the OPs. 

 

        As far refund of the fee is concerned it is clearly mentioned in Clause 11 of the Agreement that the service provided by the company being professional in nature the entire fee for the services provided is non-refundable. The complainant being signatory of this agreement was duly aware about the said fact. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any refund”

7.         It was noted that the case of the appellant was processed as per information supplied by her. It was stated that professional services of the respondents were hired to get immigration to Canada, by entering into an Agreement. Fee was paid as per agreed terms and conditions. It was further noted that application of the appellant was rejected on account of heavy rush and on account of capping of number of similar applicants for immigration to the said Country. Rejection letter has been placed on record as Annexure C-7, which also states as above. 
8.         It was vehemently contended by Counsel for the appellant that it was on account of late submission of application aforesaid by the respondents, that the same was rejected by the Competent Authority. However, from the record, it is not coming out.
9.         It was further stated that the name of the appellant was wrongly mentioned as Arshleen Kaur Grewal, whereas her correct name is Arshleen Grewal and on account of above mistake, application was rejected. The said fact is also not coming out from record. Rejection letter has been referred to Arshleen Grewal and not Arshleen Kaur Grewal. Thus, no ground, whatsoever, is made out by the appellant, to persuade this Commission, to reverse findings of the Forum.
10.         No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellant.
11.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. In view of above, application for condonation of delay aforesaid, is also dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
12.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

04.05.2017

 

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg