DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.654 of 2016

                                             Date of institution:  03.10.2016                                             Date of decision   :  26.07.2018

Sanjeev Kumar son of Late Ram Krishan, resident of House No.58, Village Tagra Kali Ram Guga Mari, Kalka, Panchkula, Haryana.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     The World Key Overseas Solution Pvt. Ltd., SCF 48, Top Floor, Phase 3B2, Sector 60, Mohali through its Director/Manager.

2.     Shri Sachin Sharma, Manager Legal, The World Key Overseas Solution Pvt. Ltd., SCF 48, Top Floor, Phase 3B2, Sector 60, Mohali

                                                        ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Gaurav Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Sanjeev Sharma, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, after going through advertisements got published by OPs in various news papers, approached OPs in November, 2015 for getting their services for having work visa in Canada. OPs claimed that they have already got provided work and study visa to thousands of persons. Process of getting work visa was explained to complainant by claiming that time of 90 to 150 days will be spent in obtaining work visa for Canada. Complainant claims that he has already worked in Dubai on work visa and thereafter he was informed as if visa for Canada will be got by him within 90 days. On demand of OPs, complainant paid Rs.20,540/- as file processing fee on 07.12.2015. OPs disclosed complainant as if he will be called upon by them after confirmation of his job in Canada and thereafter he will have to pay visa and embassy charges after 10/15 days of time. Complainant was called by OPs at their office for disclosing as if job is confirmed in Canada and as such he should deposit Rs.2,99,900/- as visa fee plus Rs.9,300/- as embassy fee. That amount was deposited by complainant on 07.01.2016. Family information as well as information regarding assets of complainant was sought, which he supplied. Even after lapse of 90 days, visa not provided to complainant and on account of assurance given, complainant remained in wait for 150 days. Thereafter, complainant visited office of OPs number of times, but status of visa was not disclosed to him by OPs. Complainant on feeling harassed, sent e-mail dated 28.06.2016 to Canadian Immigration High Commission for enquiring about status of his temporary work visa and thereafter got reply through e-mail to the effect that complainant should submit the complete information. That information was provided by complainant vide e-mail dated 15.07.2016, but the immigration enquiry office vide e-mail dated 25.07.2016 informed complainant as if they have not found any record in the name of complainant. Complainant again provided additional information vide e-mail dated 30.07.2016 to immigration enquiry office and thereafter got reply through e-mail dated 04.08.2016 as if no record has been found in his name. After all this, complainant was surprised and shocked to know as if process for getting visa has not been initiated by OPs, despite receipt of amount of Rs.3,29,740/- in all. After serving legal notice dated 14.09.2016 through counsel, this complaint filed for seeking direction to OPs to refund amount of Rs.3,29,740-/- alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10.00 lakhs  and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-. Interest @ 18% per annum also, is claimed.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, it is admitted that OPs for promotion of their business have given advertisements in newspapers. Document attached as Annexure C-4 by complainant with his complaint shows as if he is well experienced in matter of going abroad and has full knowledge about requirements of getting work permit or visa for work in a foreign country. It is claimed that complainant intentionally avoided to submit required papers. Complainant was required to submit latest market cost of his property duly attested by Tehsildar, but he never submitted copy of registration deed. Even complainant did not furnish full information to visa office, while entering correspondence through e-mail. Complainant visited office of OPs on 2 or 3 occasions and created scene in the presence of other customers resulting in monetary and reputation loss to OPs. Complainant himself did not provide the required information and documents and as such prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Krishan Lal, manager and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments submitted by complainant and not by OPs. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant and those of the written reply of OPs undoubtedly establishes that complainant availed services of OP No.1 for getting  work visa in Canada on payment of Rs.20,540/- on 07.12.2015 through receipt Ex.C-5, but Rs.2,99,900/- through receipt Ex.C-6. This amount was paid by complainant to OP No.1 after finding through newspaper advertisements as if OP No.1 rendering the desired services. Newspaper clippings Ex.C-1 to C-3 even produced on record in this respect. So certainly complainant came in contact with OPs for getting of work visa for Canada obtained. Though complainant claims to have paid another amount of Rs.9,300/- as embassy fee, but no receipt in that respect has been produced and as such payment of this amount of Rs.9,300/- is not established by any convincing evidence at all. In such circumstances, it has to be held that payment of R.3,20,440/- alone is established by complainant by way of production of receipts Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6.

6.             Copy of passport of complainant is produced on record as Ex.C-4, perusal of which reveals that complainant earlier visited Afghanistan on 24.07.2012, but UAE in March, 2013 and August, 2015. In view of this, it is vehemently contended by counsel for OPs that complainant is well aware of procedural intricacies of obtaining visa. Even if complainant may be aware of procedural intricacies of obtaining visa, but despite that he after wait of more than 10 months was not disclosed about status of visa by OP and as such it was but natural for complainant to file this complaint after serving notice Ex.C-14 through registered post.  Despite service of this notice and approach by complainant to OPs, they did not disclose about the status of his work visa for Canada and as such virtually complainant stood mentally harassed by act of OP No.1 in not disclosing the true information regarding status of his visa.  

7.             Discrepancies regarding father’s name of complainant vis. a vis. contents of sale deed Ex.C-9 exists and even if the same exists, same is not much material because OPs in the filed reply have not claimed about non receipt of money from complainant for rendering services of providing work visa to him. When such specific denial in reply of OPs or in the submitted affidavit of representative is not there, then minor discrepancy will not shatter the credibility of case of complainant at all. Ex.C-17 is the legal notice sent by complainant through counsel through registered post, but despite that status of work visa not made known to complainant and nor disclosure of same made through written statement or the submitted affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of representative of OP No.1 and as such certainly OPs kept the complainant in dark.

8.             Complainant has produced on record email correspondence entered by him with visa authorities for establishing that on contact to Canadian Visa Agency, he came to know as if the visa application on his behalf has not been submitted. Reference to correspondence Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13; Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16 can specifically be made in this respect. After going through this entire correspondence, it is made out that complainant made attempt for ascertaining status of his temporary work visa file and on asking more information by the visa office, he provided the additional information and thereafter got knowledge as if the application for Canada visa virtually has not been filed with the embassy concerned. Had such application been filed by OPs on behalf of complainant, then certainly OPs would have disclosed the reference number of application, enabling the complainant to ascertain actual status of visa application submitted on his behalf. Neither that reference number supplied to complainant and nor status of visa application disclosed and nor the date of submission of that application pleaded or disclosed through affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and as such inference is obvious that actually application for obtaining work visa for Canada for complainant  was not submitted by OPs. That certainly is unfair trade practice on part of OPs and as such complainant entitled for refund of paid amount of Rs.3,20,440/- with interest on FDR rate with effect from the date of payment of Rs.2,99,900/- through receipt Ex.C-6 dated 07.01.2016 till payment.  Present FDR interest rate allowed by nationalized banks is 6% to 6.5% only, but keeping in view the sufferings of complainant and his efforts of exposing OPs, it is fit and appropriate to allow interest of 7% per annum alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.10,000/- as well as to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more. Had visa file of complainant been processed, then certainly OPs would have provided the information or reference number or other details, but same has not been provided till date resulting in drawing of inference as if the requisite services not at all provided by OPs.

9.             Mother of complainant holds account from where the payment alleged to be made. Even if evidence not adduced stricto senso for establishing that payment of referred amounts made from account of mother of complainant, but despite that receipts Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 shows the amounts referred therein received by OP No.1 from complainant. Copy of saving account of mother of complainant is produced on record as Ex.C-7 and as such virtually complainant able to prove so much of evidence as is in his power and possession to establish payment of Rs.3,20,440/- by him to OP No.1 by way of production of receipts Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6.

10.            After going through Ex.C-6, it is made out that if application for visa documents is rejected or refusal received, then payment of Rs.2,99,900/- will be refunded within 20-25 working days. However, present case is a case in which information regarding submission of application or status thereof not disclosed by OPs and as such complainant entitled for refund of paid amount with interest, as held above.

11.            Complainant by entering into e-mail correspondence with Canadian Embassy did seek his visa status and this act exposed the nefarious design of OPs about non submission of any document or application on behalf of complainant by OPs. If code number to be supplied by agent as and when entire payment received, or the same not disclosed by complainant, then on account of that alone, fault with complainant cannot be found, particularly when he in view of above discussion, able to establish about the unfair trade practice adopted by OP No.1 in accepting the hefty amount of Rs.3,20,440/-, but without rendering any sort of assistance to complainant qua desired work.

12.            OP No.2 being Manager Legal of OP No.1 cannot be held liable because he acted on behalf of OP No.1 as an agent of OP No.1 only. OP No.2 acted in the course of his employment with OP No.1 as agent of OP No.1 and as such in view of provisions of Section 226 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, liability for refund to remain of principal only.  Section 226 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising of acts done by agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences, as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by principal in person. So in view of acts done by OP No.2 as agent of OP No.1, it has to be held as if payments accepted by OP No.2 for and on behalf of OP No.1 and even the contract entered into by him with complainant for and on behalf as well as for the benefit of OP No.1. So complaint against OP No.2 not maintainable and the same merits dismissal, more so when allegation of fraud or of cheating or of acting beyond scope of agency business/transaction not leveled against OP No.2.

13.            As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed against OP No.1 only by directing it to refund the received amount of Rs.3,20,440/- with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 07.01.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OP No.1 only.  Payment of amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.  However, complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

July 26, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member