- Pijush Kanti Bhowal,
1/15, Naskar Para Road,
Santoshpur, Kolkata-75. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services (WWICS),
7A, Elgin Road,
P.S. Bhawanipur, Kolkata-20.
- World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services (WWICS),
SC 2415 – 16, Sector – 22C, Chandigarh-160022. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 23 Dated 19-05-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had applied for permanent residency in Canada to o.p. on 29.6.06 through WWICS Ltd. Kolkata office. O.p. disclosed before the complainant that they would take not more than 5 years from the date of application to go to Canada i.e. latest by Dec. 2011 and accordingly, complainant paid Rs.30,000/- as registration charge on 29.6.06, Rs.20,300/- and US $304 on 23.10.06, Rs.20,000/- on 30.10.06 and Rs.300/- an interest of late payment to o.p. The aforesaid receipts have been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint. Thereafter, complainant stated that he got an assurance by WWICS Ltd. that all the procedures would be completed within 52 months. Complainant stated that after 5 years of registration he enquired about the progress of his case from o.p. but o.p. informed him that old cases are not being processed by Canadian Embassy, hence the legal case to be started and for which complainant had to incur US $ 750. Complainant stated that at this stage he was frustrated and he has discharged from his service from Army on 30.9.10 (a photocopy of the same has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint) and since then he has not applied for any job depending upon the assurance by o.p. that complainant to be in Canada by 2011. At this stage complainant finding no other alternative but to file the instant case with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. appeared before this Forum and contested this case by filing w/v. Ld. lawyer of o.p. submitted that they have issued a letter dt.31.10.06 addressed to complainant asking him to submit some documents as has been stated therein for settlement of the package and release of the file towards sending the complainant to Canada. The said letter has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint. Ld. lawyer of o.p. stated that complainant had never submitted such documents for which they had unable to proceed further in the matter and for which due to non compliance in respect of submission of the documents as has been asked or o.p. constrained not to proceed further in the matter and o.p. upon such argument submitted that they had not made any deficiency to the complainant in respect of rendering services as service provider and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we have observed that the agreement in respect of the matter in question has been signed by complainant definitely going through the contention of the same and admitting the matter to be correct and it is obvious the terms and conditions of the contract which made to obey strictly by the parties whereas it is evident that complainant had not submitted the required documents to o.p. and without which o.p. is unable to process the matter for sending the complainant to Canada. It is further evident from the documents on record that complainant was duly intimated about the requirement of the Canadian High Commission to send the documents within 90 days and in spite of receipt of the said letter complainant did not respond and thereafter the Canadian High Commission rejected the case of the complainant and for which even o.p. cannot be categorized for rending deficiency of service to the complainant as service provider since the complainant did not act as per the intimation served by o.p. to him for clearance of the Canadian High Commission in respect of sending the complainant to Canada.
From the foregoing facts this Forum hold that complainant has not substantiated his case as o.p. had not made any deficiency of service towards the complainant and complainant is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
