In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 74 / 2007 1) Sri Madhumita Pal, 86, G.T. Road, Baidyabati, P.S. Serampur, District-Hooghly. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., S.C.O. 2415-16, Sec. 22-C, Cahndigarh-1600222. Kolkata Branch Office, Mr. A. Lt. Col. Alluwalia, Branch Director, FMC Fortuna, Block-A 12, 2nd Floor, 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 2 2 Dated 0 6 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9. Complainant Smt. Madhumita Pal by filing a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act on 7.3.07 has prayed for issuing direction upon the o.ps. to pay a sum of Rs.1,31,005.60 as paid by the complainant to the o.ps., Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.18,000/- for litigation cost making a grant total of Rs.4,99,005.60. Fact of the case in short is that the complainant was asked by the o.p. no.2 to visit their office on 28.2.01 with a cheque of Rs.30,000/- and when the complainant visited o.p. no.2 demanded Rs.30,000/- which she paid vide cheque no.048791 dt.28.2.01 drawn on UTI Bank, Konnagar Branch and the o.p. no.2 assured the complainant will be called for interview by the Canadian Embassy within a short period of time for the visa of the complainant and her son Sananda Pal and o.p. no.2 also assured the complainant that they have specialization in Canadian immigration and settlement and the complainant would be afforded with a settlement for her and for her son along with a suitable job. The o.p. no.2 handed over an agreement to the complainant on 28.2.01 where some rules and regulations were printed for Canadian visa. Again on 15.3.01 the complainant had to pay US$ 1500 for her process of Canadian visa and the complainant on a draft through HSBC Ltd., Kolkata Branch on 16.3.01 sent the demanded US$ 1500 and in Indian currency it is valued at Rs.70,198.28 and it was shown in the statement of the o.ps. Again on the demand of the o.ps. complainant sent Rs.15,000/- to Canadian High Commission vide demand draft no.455458 issued by UBI dt.16.3.01 and again on 4.4.01 th4e complainant sent Rs.3000/- in favour of Canadian High Commission through the o.ps. vide draft no.410038 issued by SBI, Sheoraphully Branch and all those money were received by the o.p. no.2 on 5.6.01. On 10.7.01 the complainant received a letter from Canadian High Commission through the o.ps. stating therein that the visa of the complainant is in progress along with the receipt of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.3000/- as previously paid by the complainant on 16.3.01 and 4.4.01 respectively. Again on 21.7.01 the complainant had to pay US$ 60 in the name of GLOBAL PLACEMENT SERVICES through the o.p. no.2. As asked by the o.ps. the complainant had undergone IELTS test from the British Council on payment of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant repeatedly maintained contact with the o.ps. and she was asked that the process of her application for Canadian visa is in progress and she would be called for interview within a week. But, surprisingly no such call was made and again she approached o.p. no.2 who pressurized her to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- immediately, so that her visa for the country New Zeeland would be possible and when the complainant expressed her inability of paying such a huge amount and that she has no intention to go to New Zeeland, o.p. no.2 threatened the complainant with the consequences that all her money will be forfeited and the complainant would not do anything as the o.ps. are the creators of law. Finding no other alternative the complainant sent lawyer’s notice which was duly received by the o.ps. It is only for the higher education and obtaining a proper job in Canada the complainant had given huge amount of money to the o.ps. But the act and actions of the o.ps. are intentional, motivated and unfair trade practices and for such payment of huge amount of money she had suffered huge mental loss and for which she has filed this case against the o.ps. with the aforesaid prayer The o.p. no.2 has filed written statement on behalf of o.p. no.1 also wherein he has stated that there is no deficiency of service on their part and the complainant only hired the services of the o.ps. for preparation and submission of her case to the Canadian High Commission and she has received the interview call and so the case is liable to be dismissed. It is their further case that this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case which is civil in nature as per Clause 50 of the contract and agreement dt.1.3.01 executed by the parties because the petitioner herself has submitted the case to the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Court. So, the case is liable to be dismissed on that score. In their w/v they have denied all the allegations of the complainant. The cae is barred by limitation also. But they have admitted the payment has been made by the complainant. Decision with reasons : Hon’ble Members of DCDRF, Hooghly in CDF Case no.134 of 2006 had dismissed the case on 5.3.07 giving liberty to the petitioner to file the case in appropriate forum because they observed that their forum is not the appropriate forum to dispose of the case. Thereafter the complainant on 7.3.07 had filed this case to this forum. Her case was admitted for disposal. Complainant has filed the Xerox copy of the money receipt, annex-A as granted by the o.p. on 28.2.01 for payment of Rs.30,000/-. We have also perused the agreement, annex-B entered between the complainant and the o.p. Annex-C is the demand draft dt,.15.3.01 of US $ 1500. Annex-E is the statement of account and annex-F is for receipt of Rs.15,000/- made by the petitioner. The petitioner also made payment of Rs.3000/- to Canadian High Commission, annex-G dt.4.4.01. Her guest house booking is annex-H of Rs.1500/-. We have also perused the letter issued by Canadian High Commission, Immigration Section to the complain ant with regard to desire of the complainant to become a permanent residence in Canada. They have also admitted the receipt of the requisite fee from the complainant. They have also informed the complainant that her application is being processed under the independent immigrant category and annex-K is the receipt dt.10.7.01 showing payment of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.3000/- by the complainant. Invoice of US $ 60 is annex-L. IELTS Test Report Form is annex-M. But even in spite of those efforts and making payment as demanded by the o.ps, the complainant did not get any interview from Canadian High Commission as she prayed for and thereafter being compelled she sent a lawyer’s letter, annex-N dt.24.8.06 wherein she has ventilated all her grievances and in her lawyer’s letter she has alleged that the o.ps. have ‘swallowed” the entire money of the complainant “in the pretext of immigration to canada’ and she has demanded refund of her money with banking interest and penalty for her mental agony, sufferings and pain. In their reply annex-O dt.30.8.06 o.ps. have stated that the various amounts paid by the complainant were non refundable professional fees and it is absolutely wrong that they have given hopeless assurance to the complainant. And they have also alleged that the complainant only approached the o.ps. to hire its expert professional services and after being satisfied the complain ant had entered into the written contract of engagement dt.1.3.01. They have further asked the complainant to pay professional fees for her immigration to New Zeeland. And they have also taken the plea that “in fact the Canadian High Commission takes its own time to process the case due to heavy work load” and they have further stated that they have advised the complainant refraining herself for seeking any legal recourse against the o.ps. and the o.ps. are still ready and willing to perform their own part of contract. And they have also threatened the complainant that if she proceeds against the o.ps in court of law the complainant will be liable to pay cost throughout. The letter is full of contradictions because when they knew that the immigration of the complainant to Canada is being processed by the Canadian High Commission and when it takes time for their heavy load of work in that event they could have very well requested the complainant to wait for some time more. They also stated that they are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In that event it is not understood why they have threatened the complainant asking her to be refrained from taking any legal action against them. Complainant has also filed his letter of appointment issued by the Mr. Swaraj Mukhopadhyay, Principal and Secretary of Hollyhome School. She has also filed th report card and her son Annex-Q & R and her resignation Annex-S. We have already said that in order to get a job at Canada the petitioner wanted to go to Canada along with her son. We have also perused her documents viz. the letter of appointment to Methodist School, Annex-U, cash receipt of her son of East point College of Engineering and Technology, Annex-V and the identity card for pass port of the complainant, annex-W and her income tax form 16, Annex-X. The o.p. in their letter of attendance of interview preparation course (IPC) have stated that they must receive “confirmation with respect to who all shall be attending in the interview by 28 November, 2006”. But it is not understood that why they did not inform the complainant about the confirmation of her appearance to interview. We have perused the fee agreement for independence class R6 are the contract of engagement. It appears from the document R8 that an appointment letter will be sent within six to 3 months from the date of interview. But the complainant did not receive any such letter of appointment. Main contention of the o.p. is that the petitioner only hired the service of the o.p. for the preparation and submission of her documents and case to the Canadian High Commission and as the petitioner received the letter of interview the o.ps. have duly performed their duty. And they have challenged the maintainability of the case because the o.p. received Rs.30,000/- for professional fee in Chandigarh and so, the forum has got no jurisdiction to dispose of this case. We have already said that on the basis of the documents filed the petitioner hs not only claimed but established her case that she did not receive any such interview letter either from the Canadian High Commission or from the o.p. but admittedly the o.p. has received he professional fee and has also admitted as we have said earlier that the petitioner had hired their service. There is not a scrap of paper submitted from the side of the o.p. that they have not at all discharged their duty far to speak of satisfactory. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, evidence on record we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service committed on the part of the o.ps. and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as ordered hereunder. Hence, Ordered, that the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. must pay Rs.1,31,005/- (Rupees one lakh thirty one thousand five) only, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for mental agonies and sufferings and Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for litigation cost. So the total amount of Rs.1,86,.005/- (Rupees one lakh eighty six thousand five) only must be paid by the o.ps. positively with thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default of such payment, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_______ _____Sd-_______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
