Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/610/2015

Jatinder Sahota - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Maneesh Bali

28 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/610/2015
Date of Institution	:	10/09/2015
Date of Decision	:	28/07/2016

 

Jatinder Sahota resident of H.No.380, Type 1A, Sector 2, Naya Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar (Punjab).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Maneesh Bali, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for the OP

                                         

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Jatinder Sahota, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP) claiming refund of Rs.1,68,539/- with interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.20,000/-.

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant hired the services of the OP for preparing and filing the documents under skilled category for the Canadian State of SASKATCHEWAN and made the total payment of Rs.1,68,539/- on different dates. However, despite so many requests made by the complainant, the OP till date has not taken the requisite documents including IELTs. On 13.12.2014 the OP at its Chandigarh office obtained from the complainant his photographs and scanned signatures for some purpose. The OP misused the signatures of the complainant without his consent on an agreement which was not even read by him.  When the complainant raised objection, OP sent an email on 16.12.2014 to the effect that the scanned signatures were not meant for any agreement.  But, the OP, in pursuance to its nefarious designs, got the scanned signatures printed on agreement without the complainant’s knowledge.  As per the complainant, in an email dated 26.12.2014, the representative of the OP conveyed that the maximum time for processing of application is one year, but, till date his application has not even been filed with the concerned embassy.  Hence, this complaint claiming the reliefs mentioned above,

2.         OP resisted the claim of the complainant, inter alia, taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts; the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant has made allegations of fraud and forgery which cannot be entertained/decided by way of the present complaint.  On merits it is pleaded that the complainant had duly entered into a valid contract of Engagement and as such both the complainant and the OP company were to adhere to the various clauses of the said agreement. It is alleged that the complainant deposited only an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as professional fee strictly in accordance with the Contract of Engagement and an amount of Rs.18,539/- was paid as service tax etc. to the Govt. Department which is non-refundable as per the Contract of Engagement. It is further alleged that the complainant is himself to be blamed as he did not submit the case filing documents and he was duly informed to collect his cheque as applicable to his case as regards the refund clause 11 contained in the Contract of Engagement. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the OP.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant did not enter into an agreement of engagement as alleged by the OP. In fact, the scanned signatures of the complainant were appended on the alleged engagement agreement and the signatures of the complainant were forged. As such, the agreement is a forged one and is a result of fraud. He further argued that in spite of receiving the payment from the complainant, his case was not processed. As such, the OP remained deficient in services and adopted unfair trade practice.  So, the complaint deserves to be accepted. 
7.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP argued that the complainant duly entered into engagement agreement (Annexure R-1 & R-2), but, he did not cooperate with the OP and there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  He further argued that the present consumer complaint is based on the allegations of forgery and fraud, as such, the same cannot be decided except by leading lengthy and cogent evidence.  So, the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no jurisdiction to try the instant complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8.         The complainant specifically denied execution of any agreement with the OP. The complainant even denied his signatures on the agreement and alleged that his scanned signatures were appended on the agreement which were obtained from him for some purpose. It is pleaded that the said scanned signatures of the complainant were misused, without his consent, on the agreement which was not read over to him. The complainant alleged that he only read the agreement after forgery of signatures came to his knowledge and found the conditions of agreement burdensome and hence chose not to sign the same. But, the OP, in pursuance to its nefarious designs, got the scanned signatures printed on the agreement without the knowledge of the complainant.
9.         The contents of whole of the complaint reveal that the allegations of the complainant are based on fraud and forgery.  The agreements (Annexure R-1 & R-2), which are the material documents to decide the controversy, have been alleged to be prepared by the OP by way of forgery and fraud.  It is alleged by the complainant that his scanned signatures have been used on the said agreements. The factum as to whether the complainant himself signed the engagement agreement or his scanned signatures were appended on the agreements cannot be decided in a summary manner.  To decide as to whether the complainant executed the agreements or his scanned signatures were appended on the same, lengthy evidence and cross examination of the complainant as well as the OP would be required. Even the documents would have to be got examined from some expert and then the said expert would be required to be cross examined. Thus, a lengthy procedure is to be adopted to decide the controversy in the present complaint.
10.         It is well settled that in case allegations of forgery are made by the complainant and denied by the OP, then complicated questions of fact and evidence are involved. The complaint cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner that too by the Consumer Forum having limited jurisdiction to try the dispute. Where a complicated question of fact is raised, which cannot be decided in a summary manner, the jurisdiction of the District Forum is ousted.  Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., I (2004) CPJ 101 (NC). Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Synoo Industries Vs. state Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors., I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC), wherein detailed evidence was to be led by both the parties to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses and it was held that in any event that case was not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The Hon’ble National Commission in case Chunilal Pranjivandas and Co. & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., III (2002) CPJ 427 has held that wherever complicated questions arise, they will be out of the purview of Forum where evidence is to be recorded such cases are to be decided by the civil court. The jurisdiction of the Forum is very limited and the cases are to be decided within 90 days. 
11.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, since the allegations of the complainant cannot be decided in a summary manner, as such it is not a fit case to be decided by the District Forum and the case is only to be decided by the Civil Court. 
12.         In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that in the present consumer complaint complicated questions of fact are involved and lengthy procedure is to be adopted to decide the questions of fraud and forgery. As such, this Forum is not the appropriate Forum to decide the controversy and only the Civil Court is competent to decide the controversy in question. Hence, the present consumer complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievances.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/07/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President