Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/525/2015

Shri Surender Minhas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd (WWICS) - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Jain

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/525/2015
Date of Institution	:	10/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	08/03/2017

 

Shri Surender Minhas son of late Shri B.R. Minhas, resident of House No.757/1, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), through its Chairman & Managing Director, Col. B.S. Sandhu, having it office at A-31/A, 3^rd Floor, Near Raja Garden Flyover, Above Yamaha Showroom, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

        2^nd Address : A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali, Punjab.

        3^rd Address : SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

2.     Col. B.S. Sandhu, Chairman & Managing Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punajb-160055.

3.     Devinder Sandhu, Sr. Managing Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab.

4.     Parvinder Sandhu, Sr. Managing Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab.

5.     Joginder Singh, Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

6.     Lt. Gen. B.K.N. Chhibber, Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

7.     S.K. Sandhu, Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

8.     Ashok Khanna, Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

9.     A.S. Chatha, Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

10.   Kuldeep Singh Dhindsa, Director of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

11.   Global Strategic Business Consultancy LLC (GSBC), through its Managing Director/Chairman, having its office at FZCO, Office No.315-316, West Wing-3, Dubai Airport Free Zone, Dubai (UAE).

        2^nd Address : Building # 3W, AL Quds St., Dubai (UAE)

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vikas Jain, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for OPs

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant approached the OPs and enquired about the immigration process and the services being offered by them. On scrutinizing the documents of the complainant, the OPs assured that he was eligible for permanent resident to Saskatchewan Province and to settle therein by way of assuring a job. On such assurance, the complainant entered into a contract dated 25.8.2011 with the OPs and paid Rs.30,000/- on account of professional fee.  The complainant also entered into two separate contracts dated 25.8.2011 with OPs 1 & 11 for securing a job offer from an employer in the Province of Saskatchewan and in lieu paid Rs.90,000/- on account of professional fee. The complainant also paid $4300 (Canadian dollars) on account of immigration charges to OP-11 through OPs 1 to 10.  Thereafter the complainant visited the office of the OPs at Chandigarh on various occasions and made requests to arrange immigration, but, all in vain.  Ultimately, the complainant requested the OPs for refund of the amount which was disapproved on frivolous grounds. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.3.2015 to the OPs seeking refund of the amount, but, to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         OPs in their joint written statement have averred that the complainant had engaged the professional services of the OP company for securing a job offer from an employer in the province of Saskatchewan and had entered into two separate contracts of engagement. After receiving the required documents, the case of the complainant was duly filed with the Canada office for obtaining job offer which was duly obtained from the employer Clean Harbour – Macklin intimating that the complainant had been appointed as Construction Manager. Since the OPs had obtained the job offer, as per contract, the complainant was required to pay the second installment of $ 7500 (Canadian dollars) in pursuance to contract Annexure R-3 executed by the complainant with M/s GSBC Dubai i.e.  OP-11, but, he failed to pay the same.  On the contrary, vide letter (Annexure R-5), the complainant requested for refund of the professional fee, which he was not entitled to as per the contract of engagement and as such he himself was at fault. It has been stated that a total amount of Rs.3,20,509/- was paid by the complainant whereas he has wrongly claimed refund of Rs.3,90,900/-.  It has been contended that the case of the complainant was duly processed and the professional services as per the contract were duly provided to the complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         On the basis of the evidence on record, learned counsel on behalf of the OPs has vehemently that the complainant had approached the OPs at their Chandigarh office for making enquiry about immigration process and the services being offered by the OPs. On scrutinizing the documents of the complainant, the OPs assured the complainant that he was eligible for permanent resident to Saskatchewan Province and to settle there by way of getting a job.  Thereafter the complainant entered into a contract dated 25.8.2011 with the OPs with respect to processing of immigration to the province of Saskatchewan and paid Rs.30,000/- on account of professional fee, copy of contract agreement is Annexure C-1/R-1 while copy regarding payment of professional fee accounts for Annexure C-2/R-2. Besides aforestated contract, the complainant further entered into another contract dated 25.8.2011 with OPs 1 & 11 respectively for securing a job offer from an employer from Saskatchewan, copy whereof is Annexure C-3/R-3. After receiving the required documents, the case of the complainant was duly filed with the Canada office for obtaining the job offer. The job offer was duly obtained by the OPs from the employer Clean Harbour - Macklin, copy of which is Annexure R-4 wherein it was intimated that the complainant has been appointed as Construction Manager. Since the OPs had obtained the job offer, as per contract Annexure R-1, the complainant was required to pay the second installment of $ 7500 (US dollars) also in pursuance to contract Annexure R-3 executed by the complainant with M/s GSBC Dubai i.e.   OP-11, however, the complainant failed to pay the said amount. To the contrary, the complainant made a written request, copy whereof is Annexure R-5 for refund of the professional fee paid by him.  However, as per the contract of engagement executed by the complainant, he was not entitled to refund of the professional fee. As such, the complainant himself is at fault as he has breached the terms and conditions of the contract. 

                It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that there is no deficiency in service nor there is any unfair trade practice; rather it is the complainant who has failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract and he has also failed to pay the professional fee. Moreover, as per clause 10 (a) & 11 of the contract of engagement, Annexure R-1 and R-2 respectively, signed by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to any refund because he has voluntarily withdrawn from his immigration case vide his refund letter (Annexure R-5).  As per clause 9 of the contract of engagement, entire fee is non-refundable as the services provided by the company are professional in nature. Even otherwise, the present case is liable to be dismissed because the OPs have already performed their part of the contract by obtaining the job offer for the complainant.  As per the said job offer, the complainant could join the job on or before 15.3.2015. The complainant was intimated about obtaining of job offer in the year 2012 itself and the complainant was further asked to forward the complete set of documents after clearing his dues as per contract of engagement (Annexure R-3), but, he did not perform his part of the contract. Since the OPs have already performed their part of the contract, the complainant is not entitled for any refund as per Contract of Engagement. However, as a settlement before the Lok Adalat, the OPs offered the complainant for refund of an amount of Rs.2,75,000/-, copy of which is Annexure R-6  out of total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as refund application of the complainant (Annexure R-5), but, the complainant has refused to accept the same for the reasons best known to him. It would be pertinent to mention here that an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. Rs.90,000/- as per contract of engagement (Annexure R-1) and Rs.30,000/- as per contract of engagement (Annexure R-2) and US $ 4300 equivalent to Rs.2,00,509/- were paid by the complainant which in all comes to Rs.3,20,509/-. But, the complainant has wrongly claimed a refund of Rs.3,90,900/- vide instant complaint, as such, the complaint being vague and indefinite is liable to be dismissed.

                It is further contended that default has been made by the complainant himself in performing his part under contract of engagement.  There is no fault or unfair trade practice or mal practice attributable to the OPs, as such, the complainant cannot be granted the relief prayed for.  Moreover, vide instant complaint, the complainant has been raising certain intricate questions of law and fact, which cannot be agitated by him in summary proceedings and the appropriate forum for the complainant was the civil court. It has been contended that the complainant has absolutely no case and instant complaint may be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.

7.         But, however, from the appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the OPs have been deficient in providing services to the complainant under the contract in dispute dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure C-1). The complainant made various requests to the OPs vide emails and further requested the OPs to arrange immigration of the complainant to the Province of Saskatchewan, but, all in vain. Copies of email are Annexure C-5 (Colly.). The terms and conditions with regard to refund of the professional fee are not attracted to the complainant in any manner.  It is the OPs who have miserably failed to fulfil their part of the contract.  Had the OPs ever processed the case of the complainant with the concerned authorities or had further secured a job, they must have informed the complainant about the same. The OPs have produced a letter (Annexure R-4) during the proceedings of this case only.  No postal receipt has been attached with the said letter, which clearly shows malafide intention of the OPs. They could even send the letter through email, but, nothing was done by the OPs for the reasons best known to them. Now the OPs cannot draw any benefit from the letter (Annexure R-4) to dislodge the claim of the complainant.  Since the OPs have failed to process the case of the complainant and they have miserably failed to arrange job for the complainant as well as immigration, therefore, question of payment of second installment of US $ 7500 does not arise at all.  Vide letter Annexure R-5, the complainant had specifically stated that since a period of 2 years has already elapsed and the OPs had failed to fulfil their commitment, as such, he was constrained to demand the refund of the entire amount. The present case was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement wherein the OPs offered a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and thereby the OPs themselves admitted the deficiency in providing the services. The only evidence regarding the steps taken by the OPs is Annexure R-4, which is document of suspicious nature because it neither reached the complainant nor any effort was made to prove that the document was a genuine one.  No postal receipt has been produced on record, so much so the document does not bear date under the signatures of the issuing authority.  If it was issued by the OPs allegedly in the year 2012, what prevented them to send the same to the complainant immediately when it could fetch them US $ 7500 from the complainant.  The very fact that the letter Annexure R-4 saw the light of the day in the present case only and not prior to that and particularly no reply was submitted to the legal notice (Annexure C-6), goes to show that the OPs were deficient in service.  Reliance in this context can be drawn from Aditya Kumar Vs. M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.), Revision Petition No.3830 of 2012 decided on 23.1.2014 by the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it was laid down that when the OP was acting on behalf of the client after charging the necessary fees, it was required to play a pro-active role by taking up the matter with the High Commission for the grant of visa.  It is obvious that the OP failed to perform that role and hence the District Forum has rightly held it to be guilty of deficiency in service.  The authority cited ‘supra’ is applicable to the facts of the present case on all its fours.
8.         The contention that certain intricate questions of law and facts have been raised by the complainant which require thorough probe by the civil court, is not acceptable.  The dispute inter se parties pertains to providing of deficient service, which the complainant has been able to prove through evidence on record.  Therefore, question of relegating the case to the civil court does not arise.
9.         From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the complaint in hand deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.1,20,000/-, charged under contract of agreement in dispute as well as US $ 4300 equivalent to Rs.2,00,509/- (in all Rs.3,20,509/-) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/03/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President