Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/131/2016

Baljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

28 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	131 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	27.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2016

 

Baljit Singh, aged 52 years, son of Sh.Laxman Singh, resident of H.No.893, Sector 25, Panchkula.

.…Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., SCO         No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its       Incharge.

2]     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., having      its Corporate Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI,         Mohali through its Incharge.

3]     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd, A-31/A,     3^rd Floor, Near Raja Garden, Flyover, Above Yamaha      Showroom, Ring Road, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi, through its Incharge.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh. Baljit Singh, appellant in person.

Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

 

              This appeal has been filed by the complainant (now appellant), against the order dated 26.02.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.224 of 2015 was allowed by the Forum in the following manner:-

“10]      In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the concerted opinion that the complainant having failed in demonstrating the exact amount of his entitle for refund, we are left with no option but to declare that the amount paid by the Opposite Parties i.e. Rs.5,75,300/- is just & fair in terms of the terms & conditions of the contract of engagements, which included certain deductions by the Opposite Parties at the time of making refunds.  However, we feel that the complainant had to resort to seek remedy before this Forum, he also becomes entitled for an interest on the amount of Rs.5,75,300/- from the date when it became due i.e. 10.11.2014 upto the date when it was disbursed i.e. 16.7.2015. Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the same is allowed and the OPs are jointly & severally directed as under:-

[a]    To pay the interest amount at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,75,300/- w.e.f. 10.11.2014 till 16.7.2015 i.e. the date of due disbursement and the date of actual payment.

[b]    To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

[c]    To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.”

2.             The facts in brief are that Opposite Party No.1 represented the complainant that it alongwith Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 arranged job/employment and permanent resident Visa for Canada under skilled worker category within two years from the date of application. Opposite Party No.1 got signed/entered into contract of Engagement (Skilled Worker Category) from/with the complainant on 30.11.2010 and Opposite Party No.1 received Rs.65,000/- and Rs.70,000/- through Demand Draft dated 30.11.2010. Opposite Party No.1 also received 10,500 US Dollars on account of visa fee from the complainant for arranging the said Visa.  Opposite Party No.1 also assured that the said job and visa would be arranged within two years from the date of application i.e. 30.11.2010. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.67,000/- through cheque on 14.12.2012. When the Opposite Parties failed to arrange job and visa to the complainant within agreed time i.e. upto 14.12.2014, the complainant, on 15.12.2014, applied for refund of his deposited amount with the Opposite Parties, whereupon the Opposite Parties approved refund of only 7,800 US Dollars and Rs.45,000/- by seeking consent of the complainant. The complainant did not agree to the said offer of the Opposite Parties and, as such, sent representation through mail dated 13.1.2015 to Opposite Party No.1 that as he had paid a total sum of Rs.2,02,000/- plus 10500 US Dollars to them, so the said entire amount be refunded, but the Opposite Parties did not do so. The Opposite Parties refunded the entire money to some persons in similar situation and one of those persons was Ms. Archna whose application number was 65463. It was stated that the Opposite Parties indulged into unfair trade practice as they did not have the legal right to withhold the amount of Rs.2,02,000/- and 10500 US Dollars paid by the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking various reliefs.

3.             The Opposite Parties, in their written statement, admitted that Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-1) dated 30.11.2010 was entered into between the parties with regard to Skilled Worker Category and the second Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-2) was with regard to Job Offer-Arranged Employment Opinion. It was stated that the total fee admissible was Rs.70,000/- each, out of which, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.1.35 lacs instead of Rs.1.40 lacs.  It was further stated that another Contract of Engagement dated 30.11.2010 was entered into with M/s GSBC, Dubai (Annexure R-3) and as per the said contract, the total amount of US $ 10500 was to be paid.  It was further stated that the complainant made payment of Rs.1,97,800/- vide receipt dated 2.12.2010 towards payment of US $ 4500 and an amount of US $ 6000 was paid vide Receipt dated 25.6.2011 (valued at Rs.2.70 lacs as on 25.6.2011) with regard to fee payable to M/s GSBC, Dubai. It was further stated that the total amount of fee received from the complainant was Rs.6,62,800/- (including the dollar payment), out of which, Rs.5,75,300/- was already refunded to him, which was in excess of amount admissible, as per refund clause of the contract.  It was further stated that the complainant received job offer from M/s Smart Tire and Body Work Inc., but the same was not approved by the Canadian Government (Annexure R-6) and the complainant was duly informed about the same.  It was further stated that as per the contract entered into between the parties, the complainant was not entitled to any refund, but on sympathetic consideration, the Company allowed him refund of Rs.5,75,300/- which was over and above the admissible amount as per the refund clause.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.          The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

6.           Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant appeal.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

8.             Perusal of complaint shows that the complainant in his complaint, filed before the Forum, sought following reliefs against the Opposite Parties:-

“i.     To refund Rs.202000/- plus 10500 US$ (Rs.6,30,000), total Rs.8,32,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest.

ii.     To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension to the complainant.

iii.    To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.”

It is evident from Para 8 of the impugned order passed by the Forum, extracted hereunder, that the alleged payment of 10500 US Dollars was not made in US Dollars but was made partly in Indian Rupees:-

“…….The Opposite Parties have placed on record the exchange rate of US dollars as on 25.2.2011, as Rs.44.9955 for One US $ (Dollar). Therefore, in these terms, the complainant had spent Rs.2,69,973/- while purchasing 6000 US Dollars paid to the Opposite Parties vide Page No.32 of Reply, dated 25.6.2011, which has not been contested by the complainant by placing on record any other certified document of exchange rate as applicable on 25.6.2011.  Therefore, the complainant having paid a total of Rs.2,02,000/- plus Rs.2,69,973/- i.e. total Rs.4,71,973/- plus Rs.1,97,800/- vide Cheque dated 2.12.2010 towards the payment of 4500 US $, making it total to Rs.6,69,773/-.  The payment of Rs.1,97,800/- against 4500 US dollars on 2.12.2010 proves that the value of One US Dollar on 2.12.2010 was approximately Rs.43.955/- which is very close to the value disclosed by the OPs on 25.2.2011. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the complainant had parted with a total of Rs.6,69,773/- till 11.12.2012, when the agreed period of two years of agreement beginning to run.  The complainant though has claimed Rs.8,32,000/- without disclosing the value of US Dollar as calculated by him and in the absence of any proof, supporting such quantum of claim and also not having contested the value of dollar disclosed by the parties in the year 2011, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any higher value of exchange rate of US Dollar in his favour as the value of money he had parted with upto 11.12.2012 was only Rs.6,69,773/-.” 

 

The calculation arrived at by the Forum that the complainant parted with a sum of Rs.6,69,773/- up-to 11.12.2012 is correct. The calculation of complainant is Rs.2,02,000.00 + Rs.6,30,000.00 (10500 US Dollars). When value of 4500 US Dollars, payment for which was made by cheque dated 02.12.2010, was Rs.1,97,800/-, value of 6000 US Dollars (payment made by Demand Draft No.035489 dated 22.6.2011) arrived at by the Forum in the sum of Rs.2,69,973/- @Rs.44.9955 for One US $ (Dollar) is apparently correct. The appellant/complainant could not, thus, establish that he made payment in the sum of Rs.8,32,000/-. In the absence of any cogent evidence to this effect, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. We, therefore, agree with the concurrent finding of the Forum that the appellant/complainant parted with Rs.6,69,773/-. The Opposite Parties in Para 6 of the preliminary objections of their written statement stated as under:-

“That as a matter of fact, as per the Refund Clause of the Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-1), an amount of Rs.35,000/- only was refundable. As per the refund Clause of Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-2), the retainer fee was not refundable. As per the refund Clause of Contract of engagement (Annexure R-3) an amount of US $ 2500 was non refundable and as per refund Clause of Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-4) an amount of Rs.15,000/- was not refundable, thus, out of the total amount of Rs.6,62,800/- paid by the Complainant, the OP Company was entitled to deduct an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- out of the total payment of Rs.6,62,800/- & the total refund admissible to the Complainant was Rs.4,37,800/-. Thus, the OP company has already refunded to the Complainant an amount of Rs.5,75,300/- which is much more than the refund admissible to the Complainant as per the Contract of engagements, thus the Complainant has no cause of action by way of present complaint.”

Despite opportunities afforded, the complainant did not file any rejoinder rebutting contents of Para 6 of the written statement of the Opposite Parties. The Forum in Para 10 of its order held that since the complainant failed to demonstrate the exact amount of his entitlement for refund, the amount paid by the Opposite Parties in the sum of Rs.5,75,300/- was just and fair in terms of terms and conditions of the contract of engagements, which included certain deductions by the Opposite Parties at the time of making refund. The amount of Rs.5,75,300/- was due for refund on 10.11.2014 but it was refunded only on 16.7.2015 during pendency of the complaint before the Forum. By not refunding the refundable amount to the appellant/complainant, as rightly held by the Forum, the respondents/Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practices, and, therefore, the Forum allowed refund alongwith interest @9% from 10.11.2014 to 16.07.2015. The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, during arguments, stated that interest allowed by the Forum for the aforesaid period (10.11.2014 to 16.07.2015) also stood paid to the appellant/complainant. In the face of facts and circumstances of the case and taking a considerate view, refund of Rs.6,02,795/- after deducting 10% of Rs.6,69,773/- (Rs.6,69,773.00 – Rs.66,977.00) as against Rs.5,75,300/- already refunded, would be justified. In other words, the respondents/Opposite Parties shall pay another sum of Rs.27,496/- [Rs.6,02,796.00 – Rs.5,75,300.00] alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 10.11.2014 to the appellant/complainant within a period of 30 days.

9.             The amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service claimed by the appellant/complainant in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, in the face of facts and circumstances of the case, was reasonable and justified. In our opinion, the relief granted by the Forum on this count i.e. Rs.25,000/- is on the lower side and the same also deserves to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.

10.           The order of the Forum, therefore, needs to be modified, as indicated in Paras 8 and 9 above.

11.           No other point was urged by the appellant and the Counsel for the respondents.

12.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by appellant/complainant is partly accepted. The respondents/Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs.27,496/- alongwith interest  @9% per annum w.e.f. 10.11.2014 and the additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant/complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

13.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

June  28,  2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER