BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.253 of 2015
Date of Instt. 10.06.2015
Date of Decision: 06.09.2017
Dalbir Kumar Chopra son of Sh. Lal Chand, resident of House No.1729 Sunder Nagar Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.), Head Office A-12, Phase-VI, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Principal/CMD.
2. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWIC), 21-22, 3rd Floor, Midland Financial Centre, near ICICI Bank, G.T. Road, Jalandhar-City-144001 (Punjab) through its Branch Manager Zonal Manager.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. KC Malhotra, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. GPS Rana, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 & 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that he was allured by advertisement circulated, published and advertised all over the country including Tehsil Nakodar and its surrounding area that OPs are providing immigration consultancy services for getting immigration visa for employment and profession in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and other countries came in contact with OPs. The OPs for the promotion of their business and also to attract customers/general public for settlement in abroad used to float various attractive schemes in the daily news paper and also telephonic and electronic media. The complainant met OP No.2 in connection with rendering and availing of professional consultancy services provided for permanent immigration to Canada for the entire family unit consisting of his wife Mrs. Shashi Chopra, Mohit Chopra (son) and Sonia Chopra (daughter).
2. That on the inducement of OPs, the complainant in beginning of January, 2005 provided all the documents, information and completed and complied with the requirements whatever asked for by OPs for evaluation of the case of the complainant for immigration to Canada Federal under Entrepreneur category. After assessment of credential of the complainant and on discussing the matter in details, the complainant was told/informed that his case is fit for permanent immigration to Canada of the complainant and his entire family unit for his intended Entrepreneur category. The complainant was further told that OPs are working in consultation with their associates in different foreign countries including Canada through its placement division, Global Placement Services. The complainant was assured that he would surely get Visa for permanent immigration for him and his entire family unit.
3. That the complainant on the assurance and believing OPs as gentleman business assurance, hired/availed the services of the OPs on consideration for getting permanent immigration visa. However, OPs had agreed to provide/render professional immigration consultancy services to their customers on payment of charges and accordingly complainant paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- in cash on 10.01.2005 to OPs for rendering professional services besides Rs.36,200/- paid through draft to Embassy at the instructions of OPs. Thereafter OPs after assessment of the case of the complainant informed the complainant that his case qualified and the eligibility for entrepreneur category and the complainant should feel rest assured that his case for immigration would be through successfully. The complainant also got translation, notarization, attestations of the documents required by OPs besides the documents for surety and bank requirements. The case of the complainant was Okayed by OPs. The complainant incurred Rs.13,000/- expenses on this score. The OPs for the reasons best known to them had been lingering on the immigration case of the complainant and kept the complainant in dark as to the fate and status of his case. The complainant was made to run from pillar to post to know the immigration case of the complainant and grant of Visa. That the OPs have been just sleeping over the immigration case of the complainant and dilly dallied on one pretext or the other for the last many years, despite protracted follow up and protestation. It is evident that OPs had not submitted complete case with supporting documents and evidence/proof along with submission report to the processing visa office as there is/was not the remotest indication as to the date on which OPs submitted the case of the complainant for processing visa.
4. That the complainant received a letter dated 12.06.2013, from OP No.2 intimating that now they have completed the assessment of application of the complainant for permanent residence visa and as member of the economic class and further intimated that the complainant do not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada as Entrepreneur. The complainant was surprised and astonished to receive such a communication for the first time after a lapse of period of 8 years from the date of payment in January, 2005. The complainant, however, vehemently and categorically denied that he had ever received any alleged letter dated 03.10.2012 as claimed by OPs, hence there is and was no question of non submission of the documents by the complainant as alleged. The alleged letter dated 03.10.2012 is after thought, manipulation and camouflage to overcome inordinate delay inaction and laxity on the part of OPs. OPs have further not given any remotest hint as to the date of rejections of the case of the complainant for grant of visa by the Canadian Embassy. The said act and conduct, omission and commission on the part of the OPs is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.35,000/- plus Rs.36,200/- to the complainant and further be directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.13,000/-, incurred on the expenses for completion of documents and further complainant is also entitled for interest on the aforesaid amount @ 12% per annum and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as well as litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-
5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly both the OPs appeared and filed their joint reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the OPs have never been deficient in service nor the OPs have adopted any unfair trade practice and as such the complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and further submitted that the case of the complainant was duly filed before the Candian High Commission on 05.07.2005 and the file number was received on 07.10.2005, a requirement letter dated 29.08.2012 for deficient documents was received on 03.10.2012 from the Canadian High Commission which had already expired as the same was valid for 60 days only therefore an extension request was made on 17.10.2012, which was accepted and the time was extended till 03.12.2012 for submission of documents. The said requirement of documents was intimated to the complainant, vide letter dated 20.11.2012, whereby directed the complainant to submit the required documents within time, however the complainant failed to submit the documents as per the requirement of the letter of Canadian High Commission, therefore, his case was considered by the Visa Officer and vide letter dated 12.06.2013, the case of the complainant was rejected. It is further averred that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of clause 2 © of the contract of engagement dated 10.01.2005, signed by the complainant with the OPs and further alleged that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.36,200/- towards the Visa Processing Fee on 22.06.2005, which is the fee paid to the Canadian High Commission for the processing of the case of the complainant, since the case of the complainant has been processed and rejected vide letter dated 12.06.2013, the Visa Processing Fee of Rs.36,200/- is non refundable. It is further alleged that the complainant is also not entitled to any refund in view of Clause 7 of the Contract, wherein it was specifically agreed that the entire retainer fee is non refundable and further alleged that the Consumer Forum at Jalandhar does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the factum of depositing of fee and submission of Visa File is admitted by the OP but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and additional affidavit of the complainant Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
7. Similarly counsel for the OP No.1and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 and then closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. In nutshell, the claim of the complainant is that he was allured by the advertisement circulated, published and advertised all over the country including Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar by the OPs, whereby offered to provide immigration consultancy service for getting immigration visa for employment and profession in Canada and other countries and accordingly the complainant contacted the OP No.2 in connection with rendering and availing of professional consultancy services for permanent immigration to Canada for the entire family unit consisting of his wife Mrs. Shashi Chopra, Mohit Chopra (Son) and Sonia Chopra (Daughter) and accordingly in the month of January, 2005, the complainant provided all the documents, information and completed all the requirements whatsoever asked by the OPs for evaluation of the case of the complainant for immigration to Canada Federal under Entrepreneur category and after assessment of the case of the complainant, the complainant was further told by the OP that his case is fit for getting immigration and assured that he would surely get visa for permanent immigration for him and his entire family unit and accordingly complainant paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- in cash on 10.01.2005 beside this, he also paid Rs.36,200/- through draft to Embassy at the instructions of the OPs and thereafter the complainant was informed that his case qualified the eligibility for Entrepreneur category and the complainant should feel rest assured that his case for immigration would be through successfully but the OPs had been lingering on the immigration case of the complainant and kept the complainant in dark to the fate and status of his case. The complainant made so many visits in the office of the OPs and ultimately the complainant received a letter dated 12.06.2013 from OP No.2, whereby intimated to the complainant that case of the complainant is rejected, which is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, who wrongly assessed the case of the complainant and also caused a long delay.
10. To the contrary, the OP took a plea that this Forum at Jalandhar does not have jurisdiction because there is agreement executed between the parties and as per Clause 11 of the agreement dated 10.01.2005, all the differences and dispute arising between the party shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the Chief Executive Officer of the company and as such this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, in view of the Arbitration Clause and as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
11. The above submission of the learned counsel for the OPs is considered and find that although there is an Arbitration Clause in the agreement but there is an additional remedy under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is given to the Consumer/Complainant to avail the facility to file a complaint in the Consumer Forum, if the case is already referred to the Arbitrator and the same is pending, then there is a bar to file a complaint in the Consumer Forum and as such we do not find any justification in the submission of the learned counsel for the OP, therefore, this plea is without any merits.
12. Taking into consideration the main controversy of the party i.e. whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP for rejection of the immigration case of the complainant, for that purpose, the facts are admitted that the case of the complainant was submitted to the Canada Embassy, but the question is only, which raised by the OP that the complainant himself failed to provide the required documents to the Canadian High Commission within a stipulated period. As per version of the OP, the case of the complainant was duly filed before the Canadian High Commission on 05.07.2005 and file number was received on 07.10.2005, but thereafter a requirement letter dated 29.08.2012 for deficient document was received on 03.10.2012 from the Canadian High Commission, which had already expired as the same was valid for 60 days only, therefore an extension request was made on 17.10.2012, which was accepted and the time was extended till 03.12.2012 for submission of the documents, the said requirement of the documents was intimated to the complainant, vide letter dated 20.11.2012 and the complainant was asked to submit the required documents within time, however the complainant failed to submit the document as per the requirement of the letter of the Canadian High Commission, therefore his case was considered by the Visa Officer and vide letter dated 12.06.2013, the case of the complainant was rejected due to the negligence and not providing the relevant documents to the Canadian High Commission by the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
13. We have considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the OP and find that the complainant has produced on the file his affidavit Ex.CA, whereby reasserted the entire facts as detailed in the complaint. Apart from that the complainant also filed a supplementary affidavit Ex.CB, whereby controverted the entire facts as alleged by the OPs in the written reply and further categorically denied that he never received any letter dated 20.11.2012, for submission of required documents to the Canadian High Commission. The complainant admitted that he has only received a letter Ex.C1 dated 12.06.2013, whereby he was informed that his visa application is rejected and further OP has brought on the file a copy of application dated 05.07.2005 Ex.OP1 which bears the signature of the complainant and admittedly the case of the complainant was processed to the Canadian High Commission but thereafter a letter Ex.OP2 dated 29.08.2012 was received by the OP, whereby documents were demanded by the Canadian High Commission but as per version of the OPs, time of 60 days was given, which has been already expired and as such the OP sent a request through email, copy of the same is Ex.OP3, for extension of time, whereby time was extended till 03.12.2012 and this information in regard to extension of time had been also received by the OP and then OPs alleged that they sent a letter dated 20.11.2012 Ex.OP4 to the complainant for submission of required documents to the Canadian High Commission, but the complainant failed to deposit the said documents within stipulated time i.e. upto 03.12.2012 and ultimately the case of the complainant was rejected, vide letter Ex.OP5. The question remains only whether the OPs had performed their duty by informing the complainant to submit documents with the Canadian High Commission, for that purpose, the OP alleged that they sent a letter Ex.OP4 dated 20.11.2012 to the complainant but the OP has miserably failed to bring on the file the mode of sending the said letter to the complainant whether it was sent by E-mail or through Post or through Courier, no receipt of the postal department has been brought on the file even the complete address of the complainant is not mentioned on the letter Ex.OP4 dated 20.11.2012. So, under these circumstances, it is clear cut negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs because they miserably failed to inform the complainant well within time to deposit the required documents and as such there is a negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and in support of above observation, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2015 CPJ 279 (NC), title Candian 4 UR Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhaliwal.
14. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly the same is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- + Rs.36,200/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 10.01.2005 till realization and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
15. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
06.09.2017 Member President
