Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/829/2015

Vipin Jaswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Chand Deep Jindal Adv. & Ashutosh Gupta Adv.

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/829/2015
Date of Institution	:	14/12/2015
Date of Decision	:	24/01/2017

 

 

Vipin Jaswal s/o Sh. B.S. Jaiswal, aged about 38 years, r/o House No.669, Sector 10, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), SCO 2415-16, Sector 22, Chandigarh, through its Director/Partners/Manager/Managing Director dealing with the affairs of the Company.

2.     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), A-31/A, 3^rd Floor, Near Raja Garden Flyover, Above Yamaha Showroom Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi through its Director/Partners/Manager/ Managing Director dealing with the affairs of the Company

……Opposite Parties

 

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

 

 

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Counsel for complainant alongwith complainant in person
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for OPs

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant executed the agreement/standard form of contract to go to Australia on the basis of skill assessment (Skilled worker category) with OP-2 and paid fee amounting to Rs.67,416/- in the account of OP-1 on 14.11.2014. Before the execution of the agreement, the complainant fulfilled all the conditions and requirements told to him by the OPs for going to Australia and gave all the documents required on the basis of which the OPs assured the complainant that he is eligible. As per the assurances given by the OPs, the complainant executed the agreement and paid AUD $ 710.   The OPs further assured the complainant that he is fully eligible for Australia Skilled Worker Immigration & Visa process and accordingly the complainant applied for the same. The OPs explained to the complainant about the various services provided or to be provided by them, as mentioned in para 5 of the complaint, but, they failed to do so. The complainant was also assured that his matter would be represented before the VETASSES fully and he would get the Australian visa surely. As per the complainant, the OPs were very well aware that his case did not fall in the category of ‘Marketing Specialist’, but, they made him to wrongly apply in the said category and charged the amount of Rs.67,416/- and later on wrongly asked him to pay an amount of  AUD $710 as skill assessment fee.  However, the OPs failed in providing the services as negative response was arrived from VETASSES as conveyed by the OPs to the complainant.  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 written statement have averred that the complainant had executed the Contract of Engagement with his free will and after understanding its contents.  An amount of Rs.60,000/- only was received as Professional fee strictly as per Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-1). Moreover, an amount of AUD $710 was paid to Vetassess i.e. Skill Assessment Body of Australian Immigration Authority.  After filing of the case of the complainant before the Australian Skill Assessment Authority, the same was rejected on the basis of assessment that there were serious integrity concerns about the employment claim made by him.  It has been stated that the OP had no control over the decision taken by the Skill Assessment body.  It has been contended that the complainant is not entitled to any refund in view of clause 11 (i) of the Contract of Engagement.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
5.         On the basis of the evidence on record, learned counsel for the OPs has vehemently contended that the instant complaint is frivolous, malicious, baseless and scandalous in nature.  The complaint has simply been filed to harass the OPs with an attempt to extract money from them. Present complaint is labile to be dismissed on account of mis-statement as well as concealment of material facts. The complainant did engage the services of the OPs by entering into a Contract of Engagement dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure R-1) for immigration to Australia under Skilled Worker Category – Skills Assessment, which was signed by both the parties and both the parties agreed to adhere to the terms of the same. It is further contended that the OPs have already performed their part of the agreement and no deficiency in service can be attributed to them.  The complainant paid a total fee of Rs.60,000/- in consideration of company’s professional service as per terms of the contract while a sum of Rs.7,416/- was paid by him as service tax, education cess and secondary higher education cess as is evident from receipt dated 14.11.2014 Annexure R-2. It is mentioned in clause 11 of the agreement (Annexure R-1) that professional fee was non-refundable, even if the client is declared disqualified in Skill Assessment for Australia by Skill Assessment body.  As per clause 11 (v) taxes, if any, paid shall also be non-refundable.  It is admitted that the complainant also paid AUD $710 as assessment fee of respective Skill Assessment body of Australia i.e. Vetassess. As per the agreement, the complainant was required to submit complete case filing documents with the company so that the case may be processed from respective Skill Assessment body.  In his assessment form (Annexure R-3), the complainant has specifically mentioned that he had earlier worked as Marketing Specialist as full time. Accordingly, the OPs submitted the complete case alongwith documents for Skill Assessment as Marketing Specialist with the Skill Assessment Body vide Annexure R-4 on 8.12.2014 receipt of which was conveyed by Skill Assessment body vide Annexure R-5 and receipt of AUD $ 710 was also admitted therein. Remaining requirements were complied with vide documents Annexure R-6 to Annexure R-8.  However, vide result dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure R-9), the case of the complainant was declared as ‘negative’ whereas qualification of the complainant was found to be of the required level, but, employment of the complainant as Marketing Specialist at Pioneer Sales Corporation did not meet the requirement as it was assessed that there are serious integrity concerns about the employment claim.  The complainant is not entitled to any refund in view of clause 11 (i) & 11 (ii) of the Contract Agreement.  While clauses 11 (iv) & 11 (v) of the agreement state that Skill Assessment fee as well as taxes, if any, paid shall not be refundable.  Reliance in this connection has been placed on World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar Verma & Anr., Revision Petition No.395 of 2016 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 29.5.2016 wherein in para 7 & 8 it has been held as under :-

“7.    A perusal of the assessment made by Vetassess would show that the complainant was found unsuitable primarily on the ground that the tasks which he had undertaken were not highly relevant to the employer ANZSCO. There is no evidence of the petitioner company having represented to the complainant, at any point of time, that his experience or the tasks undertaken by him were relevant to the ANZSCO tasks for the position of Customer Service Manager. Hence, it cannot be said that any misrepresentation was made or any false assurance was given to the complainant by the petitioner company. The complainant knew what was the experience required for the job for which he was applying and in which capacity that experience should have been obtained. If he was not having the requisite experience, he ought not to have applied and in case he was having a requisite experience, there was no misrepresentation to him by the petitioner company. In any case, as we have noted earlier, the complainant was found unsuitable only on the ground that his experience was not relevant to the tasks to be performed by Customer Service Manager for ANZSCO, and such assessment was to be made by Vetassess, not by the petitioner company.

8.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that as far as the assessment fee paid to Vetassess is concerned, there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner company in rendering services to the complainant. Consequently, there was no justification for directing refund of the assessment fee which the complainant had paid to the aforesaid agency through the petitioner. The impugned orders are therefore, set aside. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.”

On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, it has been contended that the complainant has failed to make out a case for refund of the assessment fee, professional fee or the taxes, if any, paid by him.

6.         On the other hand, counsel for the complainant has contended that it was the duty of the OPs to properly guide him in his endeavour to migrate to Australia.  As a matter of fact, the OPs misguided the complainant and lured him to apply for immigration to Australia and got executed standard form contract agreement (Annexure C-1/R-1). As a matter of fact, the complainant was Bachelor in Arts only and he was not assessed to be suitable for the post of Market Specialist. Being service providers for valuable consideration, it was the duty of the OPs to fully apprise the complainant, the category of employment which was suitable to his qualification.  But, the OPs did not provide expert advice expected of them and the simple fact that standard proforma agreement stating that the entire fee i.e. professional fee, taxes and Skill Assessment fee were non-refundable, will not advance the case of the OPs in any manner in view of the law laid down in First Appeal No.222 of 2015 titled as Deepak Kainth Vs. WWICS Global Resettlement Solutions etc. decided on 8.10.2015 by our own Hon’ble State Commission.
7.         We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 
8.         There is no denying the fact that the complainant did hire the services of the OPs for his immigration to Australia vide agreement Annexure R-1 (Annexure C-1) on payment of Rs.60,000/- as professional fee, Rs.7,416/- taxes and AUD $ 710 as Skill Assessment charges.  The complainant represented that he had full time experience as market specialist and he submitted his case file for immigration purposes to the OPs which was duly forwarded by them to the Skill Assessment Body, but, however, on assessment, the case of the complainant was rejected vide letter Annexure R-9 as the Skill Assessment Body raised serious integrity concerns regarding the experience claims of the complainant. If experience papers of the complainant were found to be doubtful in nature and his case failed on that account, no fault can be found with the OPs. Clauses 11(i)(ii)(iv)&(v) of the agreement (Annexure R-1) clearly state that the professional fee, Skill assessment fee or taxes paid by the aspirants shall not be refunded in case the Skill Assessment body rejected the case. Deepak Kainth’s case (supra), relied upon by the complainant, does not advance his  in view of the latest law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case World Wide Immigration Consultancy services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar Verma & Anr. (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the OPs. In such a situation, the entire amount paid by the complainant shall be non-refundable. The OPs have provided services as per terms and conditions of the Agreement (Annexure R-1) and no deficiency in service is attributable to them if the case of the complainant, for immigration to Australia as market specialist, was rejected.  The present consumer complaint is nothing, but, an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/01/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President