Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/205/2015

Amit Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Daljit Singh

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/205/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	01/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	30/11/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Amit Kumar Verma s/o Sh. Devinder Verma, R/o 209, Mangalam Co-operative Society, Opp. Jyoti Nagar, Palanpur Patia, Anand Mahal Road, Surat, Gujarat 395009.

 

2. Suruchi Verma W/o Amit Kumar Verma R/o 209, Mangalam Co-operative Society, Opp. Jyoti Nagar, Palanpur Patia, Anand Mahal Road, Surat, Gujarat 395009.

….Complainants

Vs.

 

1. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory having its Head Office: A-1, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali.

 

2. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. through its Branch Manager having its Branch office: SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Daljit Singh, Advocate
For OPs	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that complainant No.1 was interested for immigration to Canada therefore, he approached Opposite Party No.2 through complainant No.2 to know the procedure and it obtained CV/resume of complainant No.1. Thereafter Opposite Party No.2 vide email Annexure C-1 intimated that complainant No.1 qualifies for getting immigration for Australia as his occupation comes in consolidated sponsored occupation list under which he could get fast track immigration of 12 months. Complainant No.1 intimated Opposite Party No.2 that he is keen to get immigration of Canada but Opposite Party No.2 insisted that complainant No.1 had a very strong case for Australia as compared to Canada.  Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure C-2 intimated complainant No.1 that he is qualifying for immigration to Australia i.e. Customer service ANZSCO 149212 alongwith full job description skill level required and programme eligibility details. Thereafter the complainants had a lot of meetings with Opposite Party No.2 and it assured the complainants that complainant No.1 had very good chances for immigration to Australia than Canada.  It also sent CV/resume of complainant No.1 to High Commission for preliminary assessment and after sometime telephonically intimated complainant No.1 that he was eligible for getting immigration in two countries i.e. Australia and Canada as per preliminary assessment of the CV/Resume by the High Commission.  Believing on the preliminary assessment by the High Commission of Opposite Party No.2 complainant No.1 paid the fees amounting to Rs.56,180/- (including taxes) and fee agreement Annexure C-3 was executed on 12.8.2013.  Thereafter the Opposite Parties vide Annexure C-4 and  C-5 intimated complainant No.1 that he is eligible for immigration to Australia but subject to condition that he should have had an experience of 3 years of working as Customer Service Manager. And for immigration to Canada he should have had an experience of working as Financial Analyst during 2007-2010.  It has been alleged that such conditions were never disclosed to complainant No.1 by the Opposite Parties. Had this been done he would not have hired services of Opposite Party No.1. Complainant No.1 took up the matter with Opposite Party No.2 who again gave false assurance to the complainant. Since the complainant No. 1 had already paid the fees so he decided to go forward with the option of immigration to Australia. But Opposite Party time and again asked the complainant for making changes in the CV, which was protested by complainants vide email dated C-7. Ultimately, the case of complainant No.1 was filed with skill assessment body namely vetassess on 14.11.2013. As intimated by Opposite Party No.2. Complainant No.1 was asked to deposit Rs.866.00 AUD (Rs.53,000/-) as fees of skill assessment body i.e. vetassess which was paid by him. Thereafter vide Annexure C-9 the result of assessment was intimated to the Complainants in negative, which was very shocking because Opposite Party No.2 assured that complainant No.1 was having very strong and positive case. It has been alleged that the Opposite Parties misguided the complainants from the very beginning due to which complainants had to  face financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,34,180/-. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case
3.      The Opposite Parties filed joint written statement stating therein that they had already performed their duties as per Contract of Engagement and no deficiency is there on their part.  It has been asserted that the case of complainant No.1 was sent to the Skill Assessment Body.  Thereafter negative skill assessment result was received from Vetassess whereby the educational qualification of the complainant was assessed as positive however the experience was assessed as negative though positive assessment was required in both cases. However, the complainant had option for reassessment which could be lodged within a period of 90 days of the assessment outcome date which was duly intimated to the complainants however, the complainants chose not to opt for the same for the reason best known to them.  As such there was no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. It has further been stated that as per Contract of Engagement the complainants are not entitled for refund of fee. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

 

4.     The complainants have filed a short rejoinder, wherein they have reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

7.     It is the case of the Complainants that they hired the services of the Opposite Parties for immigration to Canada, for settling permanently there. But, the Opposite Parties insisted the Complainant No.1 on seeing his particulars that he has a strong case for Australia as compared to the Canada. The allegation of the Complainants is that they paid the requisite fee for proceeding their case, but the Opposite Parties for a long time did not revert to the Complainants regarding the status of their applications. Annexure C-1 is the e-mail vide which Opposite Party No.2 intimated the Complainant No.1 that he qualifies for Australia Immigration according to his particulars. Annexure C-2 is another e-mail with full job description, skill level requirement and program eligibility details. Annexure C-3 is an Agreement which was executed between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties on 12.08.2013. The allegation of the Complainants is that the Opposite Parties vide Annexure C-4 and C-5 intimated the Complainant No.1 that he should have an experience of 03 years of working as Customer Service Manager for immigration in Australia and for immigration to Canada, he should have had an experience of working as Financial Analyst during 2007-2010. It has been contended that such conditions were never disclosed by the Opposite Parties to Complainant No.1, and they forced him many a times for making few illegal changes in his CV, which was protested by him vide e-mail Annexure C-7. The Complainant No.1 deposited 866 AUD (Rs.53,000/-) as fees of the Skill Assessment Body namely, VETASSESS for skill assessment. But vide Annexure C-9 the result of the assessment was intimated in negative.    

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that positive result was received by VETASSESS for the educational qualification of the Complainant No.1, but the result of the skill assessment was negative. It has been contended that the Complainant No.1 had option for the re-assessment which could be lodged within a period of 90 days of the assessment outcome date which was duly intimated to the Complainant No.1. However, the Complainant No.1 himself chose not to opt for the same. It has been urged that VETASSESS is a separate independent company having a separate legal entity and accordingly, the Opposite Parties are not liable with regard to the same nor liable for the refund of the professional fee paid to the aforesaid VETASSESS as the Complainant has not made the same as party. It has been further stated by the Opposite Parties that they played their part by preparing, filing and submitting the application of the Complainant No.1 for his settlement abroad. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties stated that they had already refunded the entire refundable amount to the Complainant No.1, after deducting their service charges.  

 

9.     In our opinion though the Complainant has not made VETASSESS a party, still Opposite Parties have to prove how the Complainant offered money to a company at Australia. Pertinently the Complainant did not go to Australia for getting the contract entered into with said VETASSESS. This shows that Opposite Parties have created another shield for their own benefit. Opposite Parties know better that for what purpose the said VETASSESS was required.

 

10.     So far as the contention of the Opposite Parties that educational qualification of the Complainant No.1 was assessed as positive and his experience was assessed a negative, is concerned, the same is contrary to Annexure C-1 which is an e-mail dated 07.07.2013 wherein it has been mentioned that “we are pleased to inform that you are qualifying for Australia Immigration. Your occupation comes under list of SOL occupation under fast track immigration for 12 months”. In this way, on the one hand the Complainant No.1 was given excitement through e-mail Annexure C-1 that he has got qualified and on the other hand, he has been informed about the negative skill assessment result as per Annexure R-8 dated 26.04.2014. Meaning thereby, throughout the case, the Opposite Parties gave a rosy picture to the Complainants and neither supported the Complainant No.1 nor performed their duties upto the level as required. If Opposite Parties themselves were not competent enough to proceed the case of the Complainants, then there was no reason for them to get into any kind of contract/ agreement with the Complainants. This act of involving its innocent Clients unnecessarily into Agreement with unknown parties for their own selfish motive proves deficiency in service.

 

11.     After careful perusal of the file, we feel that no one can estimate the pain and agony of the person who could not get the desired destination i.e. settlement in abroad, as in the present case, which was the ultimate dream of the Complainants. Further, even after spending huge amount, the Complainants had to face the failure of their attempt to settle abroad. Ultimately, after giving great harassment to the Complainants, the Opposite Parties refunded some amount out of the total money to them, during the pendency of the case, without explaining the reason and extent of the deduction(s) which they have made on their own. Undoubtedly, the Complainants hired the services of the Opposite Parties for proceeding their case to settle abroad, but it is also a matter of fact that the Opposite Parties retained and used the huge amount deposited by the Complainants for a long period of time. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in retaining the money of the Complainants for a long period, forcing them to indulge into unnecessary litigation and then refunding some amount during the pendency of the case itself proves deficiency in service on their part.

 

12.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint should succeed. The same is accordingly, allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

 

[a]    To refund Rs.53,000/- (i.e. 866 AUD) to the Complainants which was paid as fees to VETASSESS on the direction of the Opposite Parties.

 

[b]    To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants;

 

[c]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

13.     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 @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] and [b] above, apart from paying costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

14.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

30^th November, 2015                           

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER