BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.42 of 2015

Date of Instt. 09.02.2015

Date of Decision :15.06.2015

Gurpreet Kaur daughter of Manjit Singh R/o 41-B, New Beant Nagar, Post Office PAP Lines, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, SCO2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, 3rd Floor, Midland Financial Centre, Plot No.21-22, GT Road, Near ICICI Bank Ltd, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Sohit Talwar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.GPS Rana Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties on 30.7.2014 for the contract of engagement of Quebec Skilled Worker Category, Canada for preparation, submission and processing of application for getting Quebec Selection Certificate through opposite party No.1 having its head office at Chandigarh and branch office at Jalandhar under Quebec Skilled Worker Category, Canada. As per terms and conditions of the contract, the complainant deposited the initial fee of Rs.1,01,124/- vide a cheque No.007352 dated 30.7.2014 drawn on Union Bank of India and the opposite parties issued a proper receipt for the same amount. As per terms of the contract, the complainant had to deposit all the requisite documents for completion of the job and the complainant deposited all the requisite documents on 22.8.2014 alongwith second cheque bearing No.007351 amounting to Rs.33,708/- drawn on Union Bank of India. Both the cheques were got encashed by the opposite parties who issued proper receipts for the same. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the complainant made a search on net and came to know that the capping for the above said category had already been filled and closed by Quebec Immigration Skilled Worker Programme by the concerned authorities on 11.8.2014. The opposite parties, did not process the case of the complainant and even after closure of the programme received money and documents from the complainant on 22.8.2014. In this manner, the opposite parties have cheated and defrauded the complainant with a huge money and made her a fool. On such like averments, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed for refund of entire amount alongwith interest to her. She has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant herself has failed to submit the required documents within time after the signing of two contracts of engagement dated 30.7.2014 and paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- towards the contact dated 30.7.2014 and Rs.30,000/- towards the other contract dated 30.7.2014. The complainant failed to submit the required documents for case filing before the Canadian High Commission despite reminders as is clear from the outbound call centre details and the meantime the Canadian High Commission capped the program (Quebec Skilled Worker Category) on 11.8.2014 as a result the case could not be filed due to non-submission of documents by the complainant. As per clause 11(d) of contract dated 30.7.2014, in case the program is closed/capped by the authorities, the fee paid by the complainant was to be refunded after deduction of 40%. Accordingly an amount of Rs.54,000/- is being paid before this Forum by way of cheque bearing No.446626 dated 17.3.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank. It further pleaded that amount of service tax is non refundable as per clause 3(e) of the contract as the same has gone into government account. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. The complainant availed the services of opposite parties on 30.7.2014 in respect of Quebec Skilled Worker Category, Canada and opposite parties were to process the application of the complainant for getting Quebec Selection Certificate. It is not disputed that complainant deposited Rs.1,01,124/- vide cheque dated 30.7.2014 and further paid Rs.33,708/- also vide cheque. Ex.C1 is contract of the engagement for Quebec Skilled Worker Category, Canada and Ex.C2 is Skilled Worker Program. Ex.C8 is copy of passbook of the complainant to show the encashment of above said cheques paid by the complainant. In all, the complainant has paid Rs.1,01,124 + Rs.33,708=Rs.1,34,832/- to the opposite parties. The version of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not submit the requisite documents for filing of her case before Canadian High Commission despite reminders as is clear the outbound call centre details and in the meantime the Canadian High Commission capped the program on 11.8.2014 vide Ex.OP4. It is in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant that she has deposited all the requisite documents for completion of job and further deposited all the requisite documents on 22.8.2014 alongwith second cheque amounting to Rs.33,708/-. The opposite parties have not placed on record any letter written by it to the complainant to submit any document. Moreover, opposite parties are professional company and they should have received all the documents from the complainant at the time of entering into contract of engagement and at the time of receiving the amount. Further the contract of engagement was executed on 30.7.2014 and according to the opposite parties the Canadian High Commission capped the above said program on 11.8.2014 i.e just after 11 days. The opposite parties being professional company should have been aware that the above said program was going to be capped by the Canadian High Commission shortly and it should have advised the complainant accordingly. Further according to the own version of the opposite parties, the Canadian High Commission capped the program on 11.8.2014 but even after capping of the above said program by Canadian High Commission on 11.8.2014, it got encashed the cheque for Rs.33,708/- on 22.8.2014 as is evident from the entry dated 22.8.2014 made in passbook Ex.C8. It definitely constitute unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. When the program has been capped on 11.8.2014, there was no justification on the part of the opposite parties to get encash the above said cheque on 22.8.2014. The opposite parties never submitted the case of the complainant before the Canadian High Commission. The version of the opposite parties that case could not be submitted for want of submission of requisite documents by the complainant can not be accepted, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.1,34,832/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount by the complainant till the date of payment. It is clarified that interest amount is being granted by way of compensation. The complainant is further awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.06.2015 Member Member President