- Sri Bidhan Halder,
64/9, Ramkrishna Nagar, Thakurpukur,
Kolkata-63, P.S. Thakurpukur. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.
7A, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, 2nd Floor,
Elgin Road (Opp. Bhowanipur Education Society),
Next to Forum Mall, Above Titan Showroom,
Kolkata-20, P.S. Bhowanipore. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 18 Dated 09-01-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- by cheque to o.p. on 11.6.08 and thereafter submitted a demand draft for Rs.22,340/- in favour of Canadian High Commission, New Delhi for processing paper works, for obtaining immigration to Canada (permanent resident ship). Complainant further stated that since 2003 he is in employment in Celebrity Cruises Florida, Mimai, USA and came to India on vacation in the year 2008. At that time complainant applied for Canadian Immigration to o.p.
Complainant further stated that during the stay in India complainant applied for a service in IRCTC and he got the job and complainant brought the same to the notice of o.p. Thereafter complainant further that in Nov. 2008 he has been requested to deposit Rs.20,000/- by cheque and US $ 500 and younger brother of complainant deposited a cheque of Rs.20,000/- and cash of Rs.26,450/- which is equivalent to US $ 500 on 19.11.08. Thereafter o.p. after receiving the said documents informed the complainant that the Canadian High Commission requirements would be available by the end of Dec 2009. Thereafter o.p. after receiving the necessary requirements in April 2009 informed the complainant to submit before 10.8.09. Complainant in the mean time came to India on 20.3.09 for vacation when he contacted o.p. for the fate of his application when o.p. informed that the same would be available in the month of Dec 2009.
Complainant further stated that then complainant proceeded to visit Italy to join the same office at Italy Branch and came back on vacation at the end of Dec 2009. Complainant further stated that in spite of his sincere effort he has been deprived by o.p. in respect of his requirement. Hence the complainant found no other alternative but to file the instant case with the prayer as has been stated in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. has appeared in the case by filing w/v and contested the case. O.p. in their argument stated that this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter since the complainant had signed a contract with the o.p. which is annexed by complainant where is it has been agreed in arbitration clause of 17 of agreement that all differences and disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the sole arbitrator who is the Chief Executive Officer of o.p. company at Chandigarh. As such, o.p. submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter since the agreement has been signed by complainant himself. Besides, o.p. submitted that they have returned Rs.30,000/- as has been approved by them to compensate the financial loss incurred by him, but complainant refused to accept Rs.30,000/-. They have alleged that complainant has failed to submit the required documents in spite of repeated reminders from o.p. company from the Canadian High Commission wherein the Canadian High Commission had asked to the complainant to submit certain documents. In view of the above, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we find that in clause 17 of the contract of engagement signed by complainant himself that all the differences and disputes between the parties on any clause or matter contained in the contract of agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the arbitrator appointed by o.p. who shall be the Office President (Finance) of the company, whose award shall be final and binding on both the parties. Such arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any modifications or re-enactments thereof for the time being inforce and the venue of such arbitration proceedings shall be at Chandigarh, even if the o.p. has refunded Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, but complainant had refused to accept the same. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the instant proceedings cannot be adjudicated by this Forum since this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter by virtue of clause 17 of the agreement of contract between the parties and as such, the instant case is rejected.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
