Haryana

Karnal

CC/106/2017

Abhishek Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Maandi

01 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.106 of 2017

                                                             Date of instt.: 21.03.2017

                                                               Date of decision:1.5.2017

 

Abhishek Singh aged about 33 years son of Dr. Surat Singh, resident of House no.78, Sector-1, Urban Estate Ambala City, District Ambala, (Haryana), through its Power of Attorney Lal Singh son of Swaran Singh, resident of Sanajy Vihar, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Worldwide immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS Ltd.), Registered Officer: A31/A, 3^rd floor, near Raja Garden Flyover, above Yamaha Showroom, Ring Road, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi, through its authorized signatory Deepak Kochhar.

2. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, SCO no.243, 2^nd floor, opposite civil Secretariat, Sector-12, Karnal District Karnal-132001, Mobile no.0184-6604900.

 

                                                                                         ……… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Ms. Veena Rani….Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                            

Present:-     Shri P.K.Mandi Advocate for the complainant.

                  

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he wanted entry in Canada as federal skilled worker and for that purpose contacted opposite parties, who were dealing in immigration consultancy services and had given advertisement in that regard. He was impressed from the conduct and behavior of the staff of the opposite parties, therefore, he entered into an agreement with the opposite parties on 10.12.2004 for the said purpose and paid an amount of Rs.1,43,072/- as advance. Thereafter, he requested the opposite parties a number of times for sending the documents to Canada Embassy for Permanent Immigration, but the opposite parties told that the Canada Country might change policy for Permanent Immigration, therefore, he was to wait for sometime. He waited sufficiently believing the assurance of the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties did not facilitate his Permanent Immigration and thus violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The opposite parties neither facilitated his Permanent Injunction nor refunded the amount of Rs.1,43,072/- paid by him, which certainly amounted to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss. He even got served registered legal notice upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result.

2.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

3.                The copy of the Contract of Engagement shows that same was executed on 10.12.2014 between the complainant and opposite party no.1 having its registered office at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Corporate Office of opposite party no.1 is at Mohali. The complainant is resident of Ambala. No cause of action accrued within District Karnal. Opposite party no.2 had nothing to do with the Engagement of Contract between the complainant and the opposite party no.1. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010(1) CPC page 379  this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint merely for the reason that one of the branch offices of opposite party no.1 is at Karnal.

4.                In view of such facts and circumstances, the complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the competent forum/court having territorial jurisdiction in the matter, to seek redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law, if so advised. The party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 1.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal

 

                             (Veena Rani)     (Anil Sharma)

                               Member               Member