Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties for immigration to Canada on permanent basis and paid Rs.73,034/- and Rs.33,708/- to Opposite Parties and as such, the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties under the Act; that the complainant applied for immigration to Canada on permanent resident basis on 29.11.2013 and the Opposite Parties told the complainant that firstly, the complainant has to pay retainer fee so that the complainant may be retained for the said purpose and further told that as and when the number of the complainant will come, then the complainant would be called upon to fulfill requisite formalities and further payment required for above purpose. Thus the complainant paid the amount as mentioned above to the Opposite Parties. But the complainant did not receive any communication from Opposite Parties and neither the Opposite Parties told the complainant what were the documents required to be submitted and when the documents are required to be deposited. It is pertinent to mention over here that at the time of payment of retainer fee, the complainant told the Opposite Parties that he did not pass the IELTS exam so far and without passing the same whether the complainant can apply for PR basis to Canada, then the Opposite Parties told the complainant that at this stage, the complainant may pay retainer fee as she will be retained for said purpose and time of complainant will be saved and meanwhile, the complainant may pass IELTS and submit certificate alongwith other documents and if the complainant failed to pass the IELTS, then the Opposite Parties will refund the fee to the complainant. But the Opposite Parties have falsely assured the complainant to refund the fee if the complainant would nbot be able to pass IELTS. Now when, the complainant did not receive any communication from Opposite Parties, then the complainant asked the Opposite Parties to refund the fee paid by him, but vide e-mail the Opposite Parties refused to refund the amount of the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service and mal practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.33,708/- and Rs.73,034/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization and further to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Opposite Parties besides Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.  

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 ,2 & 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present case being a case of voluntary withdrawal, non cooperation and disinterest by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had voluntarily withdrawn the processing of her immigration case by demanding refund and showing disinterest through her refund letter dated 7.4.2015 and as such, the Opposite Parties are nowhere at fault. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, who are still ready and willing to perform their part of contract, provided the complainant agrees to the same and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had retained the services of the Opposite Parties by entering into a contract dated 29.11.2013 for receiving professional services with respect to preparation, submission and processing of immigration case on behalf of the complainant for obtaining Quebec Selection Certificate under Quebec Skilled Worker Category. As per clause 2(a) of the said contract the complainant was required to submit the complete case filing documents with Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of signing the agreement dated 29.11.2013, however the complainant failed to submit even a single document so as to enable the Opposite Parties to process her case before the concerned authorities and withdrew her case voluntarily vide her refund letter dated 7.4.2015, as such, the complainant herself is at fault in the present case, thus the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.    Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C4  and closed her evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj, authorised representative Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties for immigration to Canada on permanent basis and paid Rs.73,034/- and Rs.33,708/- to Opposite Parties and as such, the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties under the Act. It is further contended that the complainant applied for immigration to Canada on permanent resident basis on 29.11.2013 and the Opposite Parties told the complainant that firstly, the complainant has to pay retainer fee so that the complainant may be retained for the said purpose and further told that as and when the number of the complainant will come, then the complainant would be called upon to fulfill requisite formalities and further payment required for above purpose. Thus the complainant paid the amount as mentioned above to the Opposite Parties. But the complainant did not receive any communication from Opposite Parties and neither the Opposite Parties told the complainant what were the documents required to be submitted and when the documents are required to be deposited. It is pertinent to mention over here that at the time of payment of retainer fee, the complainant told the Opposite Parties that he did not pass the IELTS exam so far and without passing the same whether the complainant can apply for PR basis to Canada, then the Opposite Parties told the complainant that at this stage, the complainant may pay retainer fee as she will be retained for said purpose and time of complainant will be saved and meanwhile, the complainant may pass IELTS and submit certificate alongwith other documents and if the complainant failed to pass the IELTS, then the Opposite Parties will refund the fee to the complainant. But the Opposite Parties have falsely assured the complainant to refund the fee if the complainant would not be able to pass IELTS. Now when, the complainant did not receive any communication from Opposite Parties, then the complainant asked the Opposite Parties to refund the fee paid by him, but vide e-mail the Opposite Parties refused to refund the amount of the complainant and  hence there is deficiency in service and mal practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 7.      On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the present case being a case of voluntary withdrawal, non cooperation and disinterest by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had voluntarily withdrawn the processing of her immigration case by demanding refund and showing disinterest through her refund letter dated 7.4.2015 and as such, the Opposite Parties are nowhere at fault. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, who are still ready and willing to perform their part of contract, provided the complainant agrees to the same and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had retained the services of the Opposite Parties by entering into a contract dated 29.11.2013 for receiving professional services with respect to preparation, submission and processing of immigration case on behalf of the complainant for obtaining Quebec Selection Certificate under Quebec Skilled Worker Category. As per clause 2(a) of the said contract the complainant was required to submit the complete case filing documents with Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of signing the agreement dated 29.11.2013, however the complainant failed to submit even a single document so as to enable the Opposite Parties to process her case before the concerned authorities and withdrew her case voluntarily vide her refund letter dated 7.4.2015, as such, the complainant herself is at fault in the present case, thus the same is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Parties have based their defence only on the contract allegedly entered into between the complainant and Opposite Parties, but no copy was ever provided to the complainant of said contract of engagement to the complainant and the signatures of the complainant on said contracts are electronic signatures which have been put on by the Opposite Parties on both of the contracts of the engagements. Further, it is trite to state that the contract should be read holistically and not in vacua, for the benefit of one party and to the detriment of the other party as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in a celebrated judgement in a case titled as WWICS Versus Ranjodh Singh in RP No. 1475 of 2015 decided on 1.7.2015. Further more, the complainant made the payment to the Opposite Parties on 29.11.2013 and even even after such a long delay, the complainant waited and got no response, she requested the Opposite Parties to refund the money so deposited by her with the Opposite Parties.  As state above, in the year 2013, the complainant had applied to the Opposite Parties with the hope t hat within a year, she may fly to Canada for her better future, but now 2017 is going on, the complainant is still languishing with empty hands just because of ill advise, mis advertisement or inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in getting requisite job offer from Canada so that the complainant could go there. In view of the supra ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, the Opposite Parties have miserably failed to complete the main part of contract within time as promised by them and even by the time of filing of this complaint. In such a situation, the complainant is fully entitled to have refund of the amount so deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Parties alongwith reasonable rate of interest.

8.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.73,034/- and Rs.33,708/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization. The Opposite Parties shall also pay to the complainant Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum