DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.1045 of 2018

                                                Date of institution:  03.10.2018                                                  Date of decision   :  14.08.2019

Vijay Bansal age about 49 years son of Lt. Sh. Ram Bhaj Bansal, resident of House No.2869, Near Ram Leela Ground, Paul ala Road, Adarash Nagar, Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar.

…….Complainant

Versus

Worldwide Immigration Consultant Services Limited (WWICS Ltd.) Head Office A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali through its Managing Director.

                                                      ……..Opposite Party   

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Vishal Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri K.S. Rupal, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Application under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act for dismissal of complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction filed by OP by claiming that there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP. Further it is claimed that complainant has not retained services of OP and nor he paid any amount to OP. Rather complainant availed services of M/s. WWICS Canada.Inc.Toronto Canada. That service provider has independent identity because of incorporation thereof under the Canadian laws. Contract was entered by complainant with WWICS Canada.Inc.Toronto Canada. Even amount of Canadian Dollars 7550 paid at Brampton in Canada and as such no cause of action accrued to complainant at Mohali.

2.             In reply submitted by complainant, it is claimed that services of OP availed by complainant for grant of permanent resident visa for Canada, when complainant was in Canada on tourist visa by paying 5000 Canadian Dollars on 21.04.2017 and further Canadian Dollars 2550 on 25.04.2017. Thereafter OP called complainant in their office at Toronto, where complainant was called upon to keep ready 3 lakhs Canadian Dollars for investment because OP will arrange for some business for complainant. Complainant expressed his inability to invest this huge amount. There is no agreement between parties regarding such investment plan for getting permanent resident visa for Canada and that is why complainant sought for refund of the paid amount and later on returned to India. Thereafter some email correspondence exchanged between parties. Complainant finally approached OP in their Head Office at Mohali for asking them to refund the paid amount of 7550 Canadian Dollars. One of the email dated 24.09.2019 was written by Head Office at Mohali and even phone call was received by complainant from Head Office Mohali on 29.09.2018 and as such it is claimed that this Forum has jurisdiction.

3.             Counsel for applicant (OP of present case) relies on Ex.C-1 for claiming that payment was made on 21.04.2017 at Brampton in Canada to WWICS, Canada and as such in view of arrival of agreement in Canada, cause of action accrued to complainant in Canada. Certainly after going through Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 documents produced by complainant, it is made out that amounts of 5000 Canadian Dollars and 2550 Canadian Dollars were paid by complainant to OP at Brampton in Canada on 21.04.2017 and 25.04.2017 and as such certainly submissions advanced by counsel for applicant has force that transactions in question arrived at in Canada. Even the Contract of Engagement Ex.C-3 was arrived at Canada during tourist visa of complainant to Canada, is a fact borne from reply submitted to application by complainant. In view of this certainly submission advanced by counsel for applicant/OP has force that Contract of Engagement was arrived at in Canada and even payments were made in Canada and as such Canadian courts has jurisdiction.

4.             Counsel for complainant vehemently contends that email correspondence Ex.C-6 received at Mohali regarding refund approval and complainant was called upon to send consent letter at earliest to Head Office and as such Mohali Courts has jurisdiction. Even if this email correspondence Ex.C-6 may be there on record, but despite that it is made out that Ex.C-6 dated 22.12.2017 sent by Karan Sahni, Territory Manager of WWICS, Canada and as such virtually email correspondence was exchanged between complainant and WWICS, Canada and not WWICS Mohali. It is not receipt of communication of refund only that is to confer jurisdiction on this Forum, but it is the place where contract arrived at or the branch thereof committed that gives cause of action to complainant to file complaint. This cause of action accrued to complainant in territorial jurisdiction of Canadian Courts because Contract of Engagement arrived at with WWICS Canada at Brampton in Canada and even payments were made there and moreover breach of agreement committed in Canada because promise of arranging for visa not fulfilled in territorial jurisdiction of Canadian Courts.

5.             In similar circumstances, it has been held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission through its orders dated 08.03.2011 passed in Revision Petition No.3334 of 2010 titled as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Vs. Manohar Singh Randhawa that if Contract of Engagement arrived at between complainant and WWICS Canada and agreement arrived at in Canada by making payments in Canada itself, then order for refund of amount cannot be passed against WWICS of Chandigarh. Same is the position in the case before us. As such certainly this Forum has no jurisdiction because no part of cause of action accrued in territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Place of business and place of work has to be understood not looking at the booking through e-mails, but where the actual physical business by concerned is carried out, is the proposition of law laid down in case decided on 09.02.2009  by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Renaissance Hotel Holdings.Inc Vs. B.  Vihaya Sai & Anr.  in CS (OS) No.103/2009.  Ratio of this case fully applicable to the facts of the present case because place at which email correspondence exchanged not to be taken into consideration for finding the actual business place of WWICS.Inc. Canada with whom Contract of Engagement arrived at by complainant by making payment at Canada. If neither booking done at Chandigarh and nor payment made at Chandigarh and nor breach of contract took place at Chandigarh, then Chandigarh Forum will be having no jurisdiction as per decision dated 22.08.2013 given by Hon’ble UT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.355 of 2013 titled as Rajinder Chawla Vs. Make My Trip. Ratio of this case also fully applicable to the present case in view of above facts and as such complaint deserves to be returned for presentation before appropriate Forum/Court having jurisdiction.

6.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint returned to the complainant with liberty to approach appropriate Forum/Court having jurisdiction. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. 

Announced

August 14, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member