Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/403/2015

Joginder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ramneek Vasudeva

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/403/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	29/06/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	19/02/2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joginder Kumar son of Late Sh.Lachman Dass, resident of House No. 549, Ward No.15, Opposite Sugar Mill Gate, Morinda, District Ropar (Pb.)

….Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), S.C.O. 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

2. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, SAS Nagar (Mohali), through its Chief Managing Director.

 

3. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, SAS Nagar (Mohali), through its Manager.

 

4. Global Strategic Business Consultancy C/o WWICS Ltd. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI SAS Nagar (Mohali), through its authorized signatory.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA      MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant in the month of July 2012 approached the Opposite Parties Chandigarh Branch regarding permanent immigration to Canada and on the assurances of the OPs the complainant in order to process his case under Saskatchewan immigrant nominee programme (SINP) for immigration to Canada paid a sum of Rs.1,01,124/- on 18.7.2012 to Opposite Party No.1 at Chandigarh. Accordingly the complainant was allotted file No. 70172.  The complainant submitted all required documents asked for by the Opposite Parties for the said SINP business category programme for immigration to Canada in the month of December, 2012. Thereafter the complainant was asked to deposit 8,500 US dollars i.e. Rs.4,73,110/- in favour of Global Strategic Business Consultancy , which was deposited by the complainant on 14.12.2012.  Thereafter the complainant in the month of February, 2013 met the Manager of WWICS i.e. Opposite Party No.3 and asked about the progress of his case. The complainant was told to wait for 2-3 months more Thereafter the complainant in July 2013 again approached the OPs. They told the complainant that due to heavy rush it will take some more time and asked the complainant to deposit 1600 U.S. dollar, which accordingly paid by the complainant vide receipt Annexure C-4.  Thereafter again in the month of November, 2013 the complainant approached the OPs but they gave the same lame excuses and again demanded 100 U.S. dollar from the complainant which also paid by him vide Annexure C-5. It has been alleged that despite waiting sufficiently and assurance given by the Opposite Parties regarding finalization of immigration case of the complainant within 9-12 months, and even after paying Rs.6,73,713/- the complainant got no response.  As such he sought refund from the OPs vide letter Annexure C-6.  But they refused to do so on the ground that the deposited amount is non-refundable. Ultimately the complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite Parties but to no avail. Hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs.

    

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties in their joint reply admitted that the complainant approached to them and entered into two separate contract  i.e. Contract of Engagements dated 14.7.2012 with M/s WWICS Ltd. and another contract of engagement dated 14.7.2012 with  M/s GSBC, Dubai  for Saskatchewan immigrant programme.   He paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to M/s WWICS Ltd. as professional fee and US $8500 (Rs.4,73,110/-)  to M/s GSBC, Dubai and the application for Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee programe was duly filed with the Canadian Immigrant authority. The complainant was informed by the Canadian Immigration Authority that third party verification would be required.   The complainant accordingly gave undertaking regarding the same. The complete case for third party verification of the complainant was sent to the concerned immigration authority vide letter dated 11.10.2013.  The complainant also entered into a separate retainer agreement dated 11.6.2013 with the third party verification agency vide Annexure R-10, however, when the case of the complainant was at the final stage due to personal difficulty of the complainant, the complainant wriggle out of the contract of Engagement for the reason that he could not arrange the required 72500 Canadian dollar as per clause 2(f) of the Engagement (R-1) and asked for refund vide application dated 10.6.2014.  It has been averred that the complainant paid Rs.90,000/- as professional fee to M/s WWICS Ltd. and US$8500 (Rs.4,73,110/-) to M/s GSBC Dubai as professional fee making a total of Rs.5,63,110/- out of which  refund of Rs.3,25,000/- has already been refunded to him before this Forum on 28.9.2015.  The other amounts were paid by the complainant to third party verification agency namely MNPLLP with which he entered into contract of engagement, directly as per requirement of the Canadian Immigration Authorities. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.     The case of the Complainant is that he hired the services of the Opposite Party for immigration to Canada under SIN Program (SINP) for settling abroad and paid the requisite fee for processing his case, but the Opposite Party for a long time did not revert to the Complainant regarding the status of his application. The Opposite Party checked all the documents and scores of the Complainant and assured him that they will get the case of the Complainant passed and if not, the money will be refunded to him. For this entire exercise, the Complainant entered into two different agreements. Annexure C-1 and C-3 are the receipts of the fee paid to the Opposite Party and later also the required payment was made by the Complainant as per the requirement of the Opposite Party.

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that it played its part by preparing, filing and submitting the application of the Complainant for his settlement abroad. It has been submitted by the Opposite Party that the case of the Complainant was terminated due to non-cooperative attitude of the Complainant and non-submitting of the required documents in time. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party stated that the OP-Company had already refunded the part amount to the Complainant after deducting its service charges.

 

9.     So far as the allegation of the Opposite Party regarding non-cooperative attitude of the Complainant for not submitting the required documents is concerned, no evidence to that effect has been placed on record by the Opposite Party to prove the same. Further, the Complainant has placed on record communications between him and the Opposite Party which also did not give any fruitful results. Although the Opposite Party has prepared refund column in the agreements, very smartly in its own favour, yet on the other hand, it has written duties of the Company at Cl. No.1 (Pg.No.16) and Support to the Client  at Cl. No.18 (Pg. No.23), which reads as under: -

 

“1.   Duties of the Company:

 

In consultation with its associates at various locations, the Company shall provide the following services:

 

a)    Ascertain the eligibility of the client for the programme on the basis of information provided by him/her in the assessment form.

 

b)    Prepare preliminary application of the client for onward submission with the Saskatchewan Provincial Nominee Authorities.

 

c)    Prepare visitor visa application of the client to go on explanatory visit after receiving approval on preliminary application from Saskatchewan PNP Authorities.

 

d)    After the Business Establishment Plan (BEP) is prepared, prepare formal application for nomination certificate.

 

e)    After receipt of the nomination certificate from Saskatchewan PNP Authorities, prepare and submit application for work permit in case the client wants to go to Saskatchewan before getting the Permanent Resident Visa.

 

f)    After received of nomination certificate from SINP authorities prepared and submit application for permanent residency before the concerned visa authorities.

 

g)    Assist the client in keeping his/her file up to date.

 

h)    Assist the client in preparing for the interview to be conducted by the Saskatchewan PNP Authorities and Visa post.

 

1. Correspond with the Federal & Provincial immigration authorities with respect to the case of the client.”

    

“18.  Support to the Client:

 

a)    The Client would be provided with specialized services by a team of professionals having vast experience and exposure in their relevant fields, this includes processing, accumulation of relevant documents, vetting and ultimately filing of the case with the Canadian High Commission.

 

b)    Client’s case for immigration would be prepared & submitted for processing under the supervision of Mr. Vishal Chaudhri who has been engaged by the Company to handle Canadian Immigration Matters. Mr. Vishal Chaudhri is a member in good standing with the Law Society of Upper Canada.”

 

 

10.     But throughout the case, the Opposite Party has neither supported the Complainant nor has it performed its duties up to the level as mentioned above. If Opposite Party itself was not competent enough to process the case of the Complainant to the Canadian High Commission, then there was no reason for it to get into any kind of contract/ agreement with the Complainant. This act of involving its innocent Clients unnecessarily into Agreement with unknown parties for its own selfish motive proves deficiency in service.

 

11.     After careful perusal of the file, we feel that no one can estimate the pain and agony of people who could not get the desired destination i.e. settlement in abroad, as in the present case, which was the ultimate dream of the Complainant. Further, even after spending huge amount, the Complainant had to face the failure of his attempt to settle abroad. Ultimately, after giving great harassment to the Complainant, the Opposite Party refunded some amount out of the total money to the Complainant, during the pendency of the case, without explaining the reason and extent of the deduction(s) which it has made on its own. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in retaining the money of the Complainant for a long period, forcing the Complainant to indulge into unnecessary litigation and then refunding some amount during the pendency of the case itself proves deficiency in service on its part.

 

12.     Undoubtedly, the Complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party for processing his case to settle abroad, but it is also a matter of fact that the Opposite Party retained and used the huge amount deposited by the Complainant for a long period of time. We feel that at least a reasonable part of total fee must be refunded to the Complainant by the Opposite Party after deducting the processing fee at the most to the tune of 10% of the total fee deposited by the Complainant with the Opposite Party.

 

13.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint should succeed. The same is accordingly, allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

 

[a]    To refund fee deposited by the Complainant after deducting 10% of the total fee deposited by the Complainant;

 

[b]    To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;

 

[c]    To pay Rs.12,500/- as costs of litigation;

 

14.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] and [b] above, apart from paying costs of litigation of Rs.12,500/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

15.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th February, 2016                                 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”