Order No.  21  dt.  10/08/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was made to understand by o.ps. that they will arrange for immigration firstly by assessing his eligibility for immigration then obtain an employment offer for him and finally by arranging for his visa. It was also assured by o.p. no.2 that in the event of the complainant is selected for migration by the embassy or consulate of the country whereby the complainant for immigration was made, the complainant was informed that the costs are to be paid by the complainant at different stages of the process. The complainant was provided with a chart therein the fees and cost involved for the said making arrangement of the employment of the complainant but virtue of making necessary arrangement of migration. After receiving the said information the complainant noticed that retention fees was sought for with an amount of rs.1,50,000/- and exclusive of service taxes. The complainant was informed that the option of immigrating to Canada as the same had the good opportunity for the complainant considering his knowledge and experience. It was stated by the complainant that from the very date of introduction of the complainant from the o.ps.’ office the complainant was misrepresented several times and pressurizing the complainant to pay the amount otherwise the fees would be escalated. The complainant thereafter without getting any scope to think about his immigrating to any other country and paid an amount of Rs.1,68,540/- and paid the retention fees. The complainant was asked to pay of US$ 5500 being the 2^nd stage of payment and in such manner 608 months elapsed but no fruitful result was achieved. In the month of April 2013 the complainant was informed that he does not qualify in the category of the skill criteria published by Canadian High Commission. However, the complainant was assured that o.ps. would tried for providing further opportunity to the complainant, in such manner several months elapsed. Whenever the complainant found that he was deceived by o.p. no.2 the complainant demanded money but o.ps. agreed to refund the amount of 50,000/-. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund an amount of Rs.1,68,540/- and compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and interest.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant had entered into a contract of engagement dt.28.9.12 for Novaskotia immigrant nominee programme and paid Rs.1,50,000/-. As per clause of the contract the company is supposed to refund the total fees paid by the complainant after deduction of 25% in case the associated company is unable to obtain the job offer. The complainant has failed to submit the required documents as per clause 2 (C) of the contract and hence the complainant was himself at fault and not entitled to get any refund. The complainant thereafter voluntarily withdrew and not cooperated with o.p. and he has not paid further US$ 5500 for which the programme could not be followed by o.ps. In view of such fact o.ps. paryed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant was given assurance by o.ps. that he will be given employment in Canada?
2. Whether the complainant paid the amount of Rs.1,68,540/-?
3. Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant after coming to know through various advertisement that o.ps. can provide engagement to the complainant and for that purpose the complainant visited the office of o.p. no.2 and after getting his Biodata o.p. no.2 assured the complainant that the qualification and experience would be suitable to the complainant for providing him with an employment in Canada and for that purpose o.p. no.2 demanded a sum of Rs.1,68,540/-. The complainant at the initial stage hesitated to pay the said amount but because of repeated e-mail and correspondences and phone call with the plea that the said amount will be enhanced within a short period of time, on the basis of the said approach of o.p. no.2 the complainant in hurry paid the said amount. The complainant thereafter tried to make contact with o.p. no.2 but o.p. no.2 after receiving the said money did not take any action, subsequently he was informed that the complainant was not suitable to qualify in the category of skill criteria for immigration to Canada.  The complainant thereafter visited the office of o.ps. and he was assured that they will make further arrangement for sending him to another country if possible, but no such step was taken. Ultimately the complainant realized that he was deceived by o.ps. and he demanded the amount but o.ps. agreed to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- which the complainant refused to accept and being aggrieved by the decision of o.ps. the complainant had no other alternative to file this case praying for refund of the amount and compensation.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant failed to comply the direction of o.ps. and as per the direction of o.ps. to pay further amount of US$ 5500 the complainant failed to pay the said amount and ultimately as per the terms of the agreement o.ps. agreed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the retention fees of Rs.1,68,540/-, on the basis of which the complainant had entered into a contract with o.ps. The o.ps. further stated that no unfair trade practice was adopted by o.ps. and accordingly the case is to be dismissed.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant through an advertisement came to learn that o.ps. will make arrangement for intending candidate for providing employment in abroad countries. After coming to know of the said fact the complainant made contact with o.p. no.2 and after going through the Biodata of the complainant he was asked that since the complainant had the experience and qualification he can go to Canada whereby he will be provided with a suitable employment. It is also an admitted fact that on the assurance given by o.p. no.2 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,68,540/-. Subsequently o.ps. did not make any contact to the complainant but the complainant made several correspondence with o.ps. Subsequently o.ps. further demanded US$ 5500 which the complainant failed to pay. The complainant when found that he was deceived by o.ps. at that time after making contact with o.ps. he came to learn that he was not suitable for the immigration to Canada. Subsequently o.ps. also assured the complainant that different immigration option under different skill category and said retention fees shall be adjusted against such change. The complainant was not agreeable to such proposal of o.ps. and demanded the money but he was provided with the refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/-. From the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the parties it appears that the complainant was enticed by o.ps. for providing employment in abroad countries and they also suggested that his qualification and experience was suitable for his getting employment in Canada. On the basis of the said assurance the complainant paid the amount of Rs.1,68,540/-. It is found from the materials on record that o.ps. after receiving the said amount did not keep contact with the complainant. The complainant after payment of the said money had the anxiety regarding the payment of the money as well as getting opportunity in Canada for an employment there, but no positive result was found by the complainant. Subsequently the complainant was informed by o.p. no.2 that they can arrange for different immigration option under different skill category and the amount paid by the complainant will be adjusted with the said option. The complainant naturally did not accept the said proposal and demanded the money, but o.ps. refused to pay the entire amount. The steps taken by o.ps. were full of suspicious activities and by taking advantage of the weak point of the complainant for his desire to go to abroad countries for employment the complainant was deceived and there was clear unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. Therefore we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the refund of the amount paid by him as well as compensation and litigation cost. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.603/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,68,540/- (Rupees one lakh sixty eight thousand five hundred forty) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.  

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.