Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/729/2015

Manju Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Madan Jassal

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/729/2015
Date of Institution	:	28/10/2015
Date of Decision	:	11/07/2016

 

 

Manju Bala, aged 48 years, wife of Sh. Karam Chand, resident of #BI/559, Rathpur Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

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.

……Opposite Parties

 

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

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Navjot Singh, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Madan Jassal, Counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Smt. Manju Bala, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs).

                As per the allegations of the complainant, she visited the office of OP-1 and OP-1 assured the complainant to arrange a job employment and permanent resident visa for Canada under various categories within two years from the date of application. The complainant signed various papers and contracts as asked by OP-1.  OP-1 also got signed two applications dated 31.7.2012 and four contracts out of which two were shown to be executed with Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai. OP-1 received Rs.1,46,068/- through cheque on 31.7.2012 from the complainant and it issued two receipts dated 31.7.2012 i.e. one for Rs.33,708/- and another for Rs.1,12,360/-. Thereafter OP-1 demanded 5000 US$ from the complainant and she paid Rs.2,70,239/- equal to 5000 US$ through cheque dated 30.8.2012. The complainant completed all the formalities and she was assured that the job/employment and permanent visa for Canada would be arranged within two years.  Thereafter the complainant visited a number of times in the office of OP-1 and enquired about the case, but, nothing was told even after expiry of two years’ time. Ultimately, the complainant requested for refund of her money and the OPs refunded Rs.75,000/- through cheque dated 30.1.2015 and 4800 US$ through pay order dated 29.4.2015 to the complainant.  The complainant demanded the entire money, but, the OPs refused to pay the same.  The complainant has alleged that the OPs are liable to refund the remaining amount of Rs.71,068/- and 200 US$ alongwith interest and Rs.90,000/- on account of cost of litigation and compensation for harassment.

2.         The OPs resisted the complaint, inter alia, taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has also suppressed material facts.  It is alleged that as a matter of fact the complainant had made payment of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as professional fee as per the contract of engagements dated 31.7.2012 (Annexure R-1 to R-4) and an amount of Rs.3,708/- and Rs.12,360/- was paid towards the service tax. Out of the said amount of Rs.1,30,000/-, the complainant had given a consent letter for refund of Rs.75,000/- and accordingly received the said amount vide cheque dated 30.1.2015.   The complainant had also entered into another Contract of Engagement dated 31.7.2012 with M/s GSBC, Dubai and had paid an amount of US$ 4800 (equivalent to Rs.2,70,239/-) and receipt dated 31.8.2012 (Annexure R-9) was issued with regard to the same.  It is further alleged that the complainant gave a consent letter for receiving US $ 4800 and the same was paid vide DD dated 29.4.2015. Accordingly an amount of Rs.3,06,096/- was debited to the account of the complainant as regards the encashment of the said draft. It is alleged that the complainant gave the consent for refund of Rs.75,000/- and US$ 4800 and got the cheques encashed as such the doctrine of promissory estoppel is fully applicable in the present case.  The OPs have acted on the consent letter and assurance and refunded the amount and even the complainant had assured not to file any legal case or raise any claim against the company and the settlement was full and final.  Thus, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         Replication was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the OPs.
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 it is proved on the record and is also an admitted fact that the OPs received a sum of Rs.1,46,068/- and 5000 US$ from the complainant on the assurance that job employment and permanent visa would be arranged for the complainant within a period of two years, but, they have failed to make the arrangement within the said period and later on only refunded a sum of Rs.75,000/- and 4800 US$. As such, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the remaining amount of Rs.71,068/- and 200 US$ from the OPs, besides compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and litigation costs.  He further argued that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank papers; there had been no full and final settlement; the documents about full and final settlement are forged ones and the same cannot be relied upon.  He has drawn our attention towards Annexure C-11 to prove that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank papers.
7.         The learned counsel for the OPs, on the other hand, argued that there has been full and final settlement with the complainant and now she is estopped by her own act and conduct to claim the refund. He argued that the OPs have charged the processing fee etc. so after full and final settlement, nothing remains to be paid to the complainant and she has no right to bring this complaint. He argued that the signatures of the complainant were not obtained on blank papers. Annexure C-11 is a document of the complainant herself and the same is not binding on the OPs as the same was neither issued nor signed by them and such a type of letter can be created by the complainant in her favour at any time.
8.         Annexure C-6 & C-7 are the copies of the receipts issued by OP-1 which clearly prove that OP-1 received a total sum of Rs.1,46,068/- from the complainant vide cheque dated 31.7.2012. Annexure C-8 proves that a sum of Rs.2,70,239/- was paid by the complainant through cheque dated 30.8.2012. Annexure C-9 proves that the complainant was refunded a sum of Rs.75,000/- through cheque dated 30.1.2015.  Annexure C-10 proves that the complainant was issued pay order of US$ 4800.  The only question which requires determination in this case is as to whether there has been a full and final settlement between the complainant and the OPs or the signatures of the complainant, as alleged, were obtained on blank papers and the OPs have refused to refund the balance amount?
9.         It is pertinent to mention here that Annexure
   C-11, which is a copy of the consent letter, bears the signatures of the complainant only and is created by her in her own favour. This document has not come from the custody of the OPs nor the same bears any signatures or writing from the side of the OPs. So, on the basis of Annexure C-11, it cannot be said that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank paper. 
10.         A person can tell lies, but, the circumstances do not. Annexure R-5 is a copy of the consent letter (original was also produced at the time of arguments) which proves that after settlement arrived at between the parties, the complainant on 30.1.2015 received a sum of Rs.75,000/-. This consent letter proves that this settlement was made by the OPs as a special case although the same was not admissible under the terms of the contract signed by the company.  The complainant also declared and certified that the settlement arrived at between the parties was of free will on both the sides and without there being any element of coercion or undue influence. The complainant further declared that she shall have no further claim, whatsoever against the company once the above said payment is received by her and the settlement referred to above shall be towards full and final settlement for all times to come.  The complainant also undertook not to file any legal case or raise any claim against the company for refund/damages ever in future.  This consent letter even has a verification wherein the complainant verified that she has properly read and understood the contents of settlement, agreement and appended her respective signature of her free will and without any misrepresentation, coercion, undue influence or importunity on the part of the other party. Thereafter the complainant was handed over a cheque dated 30.1.2015 of Rs.75,000/- which was got encashed by her. 
11.         Annexure R-11 is photocopy of another consent letter which proves that the complainant gave her consent to receive an amount of US$ 4800 towards refund and there is also same stipulation that the settlement was granted as a special case. This consent letter also proves that the complainant accepted US$ 4800 as full and final settlement and she gave the undertaking not to file any legal case or raise any claim against the company.  This consent letter is also verified by the complainant. The complainant received US$ 4800 through cheque which was also got encashed by her.  The consent letters given by the complainant were given voluntarily, without any pressure, in full and final settlement.  Had there been any misrepresentation, coercion or the signatures of the complainant obtained on blank papers, there was no reason for the complainant to receive both the cheques and encash them. At that time no objection was raised by the complainant and she did not receive the cheques under protest.  Even after getting the cheques encashed, the complainant did not make any complaint to the police authorities with regard to the fraud played upon her.  Even she did not serve any legal notice immediately upon the OPs to the effect that her consent was obtained under pressure or coercion. The settlements took place on 26.9.2014 and 30.1.2015, but, the present complaint was filed on 28.10.2015.  Silence for such a long time by the complainant itself proves that she voluntarily gave the consent letter, accepted the money and later on, with a view to extract more money, filed the instant complaint. After the full and final settlement, the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to claim the balance amount.  She has been left with no right whatsoever in the remaining amount because at the appropriate time she did not raise any objection and the OPs, acting on the consent of the complainant, delivered two cheques which were also got encashed by her.
12.         It is pertinent to mention here that once there has been a full and final settlement between the complainant and the OPs, which was accepted by the complainant, the relationship of consumer and service provider had also come to an end. The complainant was no more a consumer and the OPs were no more service providers. As such, this complaint is also not maintainable. 
13.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, the consumer complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/07/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President