Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/594/2016

Abhishek Bhatti - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

H.C. Kaushal

05 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/594/2016
Date of Institution	:	02/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	05/11/2018

 

Abhishek Bhatti S/o Sh. P.L. Bhatti, R/o H.No.1066, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory having its Office: SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

[2]     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, through its Branch Manager having its Office: A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Raman Walia, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Abhishek Bhatti, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that driven by the representations & assurances of the Opposite Parties that he had a very strong case, he entered into contact of engagement with the Opposite Parties for receiving their professional services for his immigration case under Federal Skilled Worker category for Canada. The Complainant paid Rs.84,270/- demanded by the Opposite Parties as initial Retainership/Consultancy fee at the time of execution of contract of engagement through Cheque dated 02.05.2013. Thereafter, the Complainant paid Rs.10,170/- (203.40 Dollars) in favour of one World Education Services for assessment of his educational credentials. Further, the Opposite Parties raised another demand under the name of Receiver General of Canada for 550 Canadian Dollars (Rs.27,500/-) which was fulfilled by the Complainant. Opposite Parties thereafter demanded the balance Consultation/Retainership Fee of Rs.75,000/- along with Rs.853/-, which the Complainant paid. Thereafter, the Complainant waited for long period for the result of the application to come, but unfortunately his case was received back due to Capping and the Visa Processing Demand Order of Canadian Dollar 550 was also refunded/returned back. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for refund of the consultancy fee & other charges, the Opposite Parties allured him to again hire their services and entered into fresh/second Contract of Engagement dated 10.05.2014 whereby the Complainant was made to pay Rs.67,416/-. Thereafter, the case of the Complainant was again filed and Canadian Dollar 550 (Rs.27,500/-) was taken by the Opposite Parties to be paid to the Receiver General for Canada. However, vide letter dated 21.11.2014 the case of the Complainant was rejected by the Canadian Immigration Authorities. When approached, the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant that they had moved an application for reconsideration of his case. However, the said application was also declined by the Canadian Authorities vide e-mail dated 23.01.2015. Thereafter, the Complainant time & again personally met the officials of the Opposite Parties including the Branch Manager for the refund of the entire above said amount, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had retained the services of the OP-Company for getting Skilled Assessment done and had accordingly entered into a contract of engagement dated 06.05.2013 under Skilled Worker Category. The Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which was non-refundable and further, an amount of Rs.18,540/- was paid by the Complainant towards Service Tax which was also non-refundable. As per the Contract, the duty of the OP-Company was to file the case on behalf of the Complainant and for getting Educational Credential Assessment done through the designed Organizations recognized by Citizenship & Immigration Canada and accordingly, the Immigration case on behalf of the Complainant was duly filed with World Education Services (Assessing Authority of Canada) for getting Educational Credential Assessment done on behalf of the Complainant for which an amount of CAD$ 203 was paid by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant was duly filed with the Citizenship and Immigration Canada under Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) Category vide letter dated 30.07.2013. However, the case of the Complainant was rejected by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the ground of capping and accordingly, the immigration application on behalf of the Complainant could not be processed further and even the visa processing fee of CAD$ 550 was also returned by the Canadian High Commission due to capping vide e-mail dated 02.01.2014. It has been asserted that the OP-Company had duly performed its part of contract right from the time when the Complainant had retained the service of the OP-Company, however the program under which the immigration application of the Complainant to be filed was capped by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada for which the Opposite Parties cannot be blamed. After knowing the fact with regard to capping of his immigration application, the Complainant again retained the professional services of the Opposite Parties for immigration to Canada under the Skilled Worker Category by paying Rs.60,000/- and accordingly had entered into a contract of engagement dated 10.05.2014 with the OP-Company. The remaining amount of Rs.80,000/- was adjusted from the earlier immigration application of the Complainant which was capped by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The immigration application on behalf of the Complainant was duly filed before the Citizenship and Immigration Canada vide letter dated 30.05.2014. However, vide e-mail dated 21.10.2014, Citizenship and Immigration Canada rejected the immigration application of the Complainant on merits for the reasons that the Complainant has obtained insufficient points to qualify for immigration to Canada. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
6.         A careful perusal of the documents on record makes it abundantly clear that the Complainant is nowhere faulty, in as much as, he paid the required amount not only once, but twice and wasted approximately two years for getting settled abroad.
7.         In our opinion, it was failure on the part of the Opposite Parties to delay the application of the Complainant, in the first instance, when the issue of capping arose and of course, in the second instance also, it was the failure on the part of the Opposite Parties only that they could not have enough competence to calculate the points under the clause of education correctly. As per the Canadian Authorities the total required points were 67 and the case of the Complainant was rejected due to one less point, which according to the Opposite Parties was to be given by them.
8.         We feel that when the Complainant could not be successful in the first instance, then there was no occasion for the Opposite Parties to lure him again for the same futile exercise which seems that it was a trap by the Opposite Parties for the Complainant by offering their tricky services which resulted finally in wastage of time, energy & of course, money and most importantly, the indulgence of the Complainant in the present unnecessary litigation. Who knows that how many gullible consumers have been harassed by the Opposite Parties in such a clever manner? Admittedly, the Opposite Parties offered an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant towards refund, which itself shows that they admitted that they were deficient in providing proper services to the Complainant. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for not handling the case of the Complainant properly and later refusing to refund the amounts received by them, proves that they are deficient in service and are guilty of unfair trade practice, which in turn has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant. 
9.         The Complainant in the prayer clause has sought refund of the entire amount paid by him, along with interest. However, per material on record, we cannot grant said relief in toto to the Complainant, for the sole reason that for preparing and filing the immigration application of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties must have used their official machinery/manpower, for which we deem it appropriate to deduct 10% from the total amount towards administrative charges.
10.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To refund Rs.2,04,776/- (after deducting 10% towards administrative charges from the total fee of Rs.2,27,529/-) to the Complainant; 

[b]    To refund a sum of Rs.10,170/- (paid as fee for assessment i.e. 203 CAD$);

[c]    To pay a sum of Rs.27,500/- (paid as fee for filing of case/application i.e. 550 CAD$);

[d]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[e]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

11.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] to [d] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from complying with the directions as contained in sub-para [e] above. 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/11/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”