BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.411 of 2016

Date of Instt. 21.09.2016

Date of Decision: 28.08.2018

Mohit Arora S/o Sh. Hari Om R/o Plot No.3, Aman Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali through its Managing Director.

2. Branch Manager Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office, Midland Tower, G. T. Road, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Rahul Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. GPS Rana, Adv Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant applied for permanent residency at Manitoba, Provincial Nominee Program, Canada through respondent. The complainant accordingly entered into an agreement with the respondent on 04.02.2016. The complainant had paid Rs.2,06,100/- as the fee for the engagement and providing services to the complainant through cheque, which was duly encashed in the account of the respondent. While entering the contract, the respondent assured that the petitioner qualify for the above said category and assured that the complainant will get the permanent residency in Canada, on the assurance given by the respondent, the fee of Rs.2,06,100/- has been paid by the complainant to the respondent along with the said fees of Rs.50,000/- has also been taken as cash for miscellaneous expenses for preparation of CA Report and Property Valuation etc. The said amount of Rs.50,000/- was handed over the Branch Manager Mr. Aseem and his Assistant Mr. Raj Suri. The complainant has visited number of times to the respondent and inquired about the status of his file. As the respondent had not responded, as such, the complainant requested them to refund his fee i.e. Rs.2,06,100/- and Rs.50,000/-, which was paid as cash. The respondent No.2 told the complainant that it is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- ,which was paid as cash. Due to which an application to this effect has been made and presented to the Branch Office i.e. with the respondent No.2 on 23.05.2016, which was duly received by their representative Ms. Depali. Copy of the said application is attached herewith. Thereafter, the representative of the respondent at Jalandhar office asked the complainant that there is no clause for refund of the fees in any circumstances.

2. That the complainant on 25.07.2016, again moved an application requesting them to refund the fee. The brother of the complainant Rajiv Kumar has also applied for the above said category and the complainant requested the respondent No.2 to adjust the amount with the fee of his brother Rajiv Kumar. The said request letter dated 15.06.2016 is also received by OP No.2. The OP acted negligently and fraudulently and extracted the amount of Rs.2,06,100/- through cheque and assured the complainant that he will get permanent immigration. When the complainant requested to refund the amount, they refused and flatly stated that the amount will not be returned. Now, the complainant have got the letter along with documents returned by the respondent with the content that the complainant not qualify under MPB Program. The respondent misrepresented and acted negligently and also played fraud as the complainant not qualify for the Manitoba Province Program, but the respondent wrongly entered into an agreement and extracted the amount of Rs.2,06,100/-. The complainant made request to the respondent to settle the matter and to adjust the fee with the fees payable for the agreement of his brother Rajiv Kumar, but the OP did not agree rather the OP committed unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the fees of Rs.2,06,100/- along with interest and compensation for unfair trade practice and negligence, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed its joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has failed to disclose the fact that 5 years ban from Canada was imposed upon the complainant. The complainant had concealed material facts regarding his immigration case from the answering respondents while engaging the services of respondents and entering into contract of engagement dated 04.02.2016. The complainant had engaged the services of answering respondents by entering into contract dated 04.02.2016 under Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program for the purpose of securing a Nomination Certificate from Manitoba Provincial Authorities and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (excluding service tax of an amount of Rs.22,248/-), vide receipt dated 04.02.2016. During the process of working on complainant's immigration case respondents found that the complainant was inadmissible to Canada and a ban was imposed on him for a period of five years by Canadian High Commission (in short CHC), but this fact has been concealed by the complainant from the OP. Thus, the complainant himself is at fault in the present case and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thus, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the fee in view of Clause 12 (ix) of the contract dated 04.02.2016. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has engaged the services of answering OP after paying the fee and also entered into an agreement, but the remaining contents of the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and then closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and some documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/6 and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. In nutshell, the case of the complainant to the effect that the complainant approached to the OP for getting services for permanent residency at Manitoba, Provincial Nominee Program, Canada, for that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,06,100/- and it was also not disputed that the complainant is qualified for the above said category and case of the complainant will be proceeded accordingly. The plea taken by the OP is only that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the OP because when the case of the complainant was proceeded for immigration, then the factum came to notice of the OP that complainant was inadmissible to Canada immigration and a ban was imposed upon the complainant for a period of 5 years by the Canadian High Commission. As the complainant had earlier applied for Canadian Temporary Resident Visa on his own and he has received a letter dated 27.10.2015 from Canadian High Commission, wherein the complainant was found to be engaged in misrepresentation in submitting his application for temporary resident visa and accordingly, through aforesaid letter dated 27.10.2015, the Canadian High Commission had asked the complainant to provide an explanation within 30 days from the receipt of the letter in this regard and failing which the complainant was deemed to have been rendered inadmissible to Canada for a period of 5 years, but the complainant never submitted the said explanation and accordingly, a ban was imposed upon the complainant for five years, the copy of the said letter dated 27.10.2015 produced on the file by the OP is Ex.OP/3. So, due to the fault of the complainant, his case was not processed and in alternative, the complainant was also asked to submit some documents through letter Ex.OP/4, but in response to that letter, the complainant never submitted any documents and ultimately, it is established fact that there is no fault on the part of the OP nor there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice rather there is a totally glaring mistake on the part of the complainant himself, who intentionally and willfully concealed the material facts i.e. the imposition of 5 years ban upon the complainant by the Canadian High Commission and if the complainant himself misrepresented or gave wrong fact to the OP, then as per agreement Ex.C-1, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the fee deposited for getting services from the OP and thus, we reach to the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is not succeed and therefore, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

28.08.2018 Member President