Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/507/2015

Mr. Sunderpreet Dev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gagandeep Singh Cheema

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/507/2015
Date of Institution	:	05/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	02/06/2016

 

 

Sunderpreet Dev Singh S/o Sh. Narinder Singh Basra, R/o House No. 2097, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, A-2, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali, through its Managing Director.

 

[2]    Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, through its Regional Manager having its Regional Office at SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

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

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gagandeep Singh Cheema, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

1.         Sh. Sunderpreet Dev Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited & Anr., (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that the Opposite Parties had failed to provide any assistance and harassed him a lot, firstly, by non-processing his immigration case and secondly, by refusing to refund the amount paid by him.

                The Complainant has averred that he approached the Opposite Parties during January 2014 for permanent immigration for Australia and after due assurances and promises, he signed one contract of engagement under skilled worker category – skilled Assessment Agreement was firstly executed on 28.2.2014 between the Opposite Parties and Complainant. It has been averred that the OP-Company made written assurance for providing complete end to end and date to date guidance for immigration. However, when the same was not forthcoming and the official staff was not providing support in timely manner whenever required, the Complainant made a request for refund of the amount paid.  It was thereafter that the Opposite Parties called the Complainant and again assured for proper guidance, but no guidance was provided and rather they lingered on the matter by misguiding him by one way or another, due to which he is still residing in India, till date. It has been alleged that the Complainant made several phone calls and visited the office of the Opposite Parties many times, however, they never entertained the Complainant and flatly refused to refund the amount. Eventually, a legal notice dated 22.4.2015 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but till date neither the Opposite Parties sent any reply or gave any satisfactory reply. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         In its written reply, Opposite Parties have admitted that the Complainant filed Assessment Form and accordingly entered into a Contract of Engagement dated 28.02.2014 for Skilled Worker for Australia. It has been pleaded that the answering Opposite Parties had duly performed their duty as per the Contract dated 28.02.2014 and positive skill assessment of the Complainant was got done from the Australian Skill Authorities. There was no case made out for refund of the professional fee as the same was non-refundable. It has been further pleaded that it was the Complainant who was at fault as he failed to provide the necessary documents and did not deposit the Visa processing fee payable to the Australian Govt.  It has been asserted that the Opposite Parties have always been ready and willing to provide the professional services to the Complainant, however, he had failed to cooperate with them. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
6.         The case of the Complainant is that he hired the services of the Opposite Parties for permanent immigration of Australia and paid the requisite fee for processing his case, but the Opposite Parties for a long time did not revert to the Complainant regarding the status of his application. As per the case of the Complainant, the official staff of the Opposite Parties was not providing support in timely manner whenever required and therefore the Complainant made a request for the refund of the amount paid. The allegation of the Complainant is that due to non-providing of proper guidance by the Opposite Parties and rather misguiding him by one way or the other, he is still residing in India till date. Various e-mail communications [Annexure C-3] were exchanged between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, but without any fruitful result. Thereafter, one legal notice dated 22.4.2015 [Annexure C-4 & C-5] was served upon the Opposite Parties, which was also not replied at any stage. Annexure C-1 dated 28.2.2014 and C-2 dated 25.06.2014 are the Contract of Engagements entered into between the parties.
7.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that they have played their part by preparing, filing and submitting the application of the Complainant for his settlement abroad. It has been further contended by the Opposite Parties that the case of the Complainant was terminated due to non-cooperative attitude of the Complainant and non-submitting of the required foreign fee and IELTS results.
8.         A careful perusal of Annex.R-3 and R-4 reveals that Opposite Parties duly performed their part of the duty of submitting the complete case of the Complainant for Skill Assessment with Australian Authorities. Annex.R-4 letter dated 12.06.2014 which is the copy of positive Skill Assessment of the Complainant was duly received by the Opposite Parties from the competent authority of Australian Government. Meaning thereby, the Opposite Parties have already performed a very substantial part of their duty as per the contract of engagement.  Further, it is clear from the terms & conditions of Annex. C-1 and C-2 that it was mandatory to submit IELTS result for the purpose of immigration, but the Complainant has not produced any such result on record to corroborate his defence. This fact has also been reiterated by the Opposite Parties in their written statement and written arguments. Moreover, this point has not been rebutted by the Complainant in any of the document i.e. the rejoinder, as well as written arguments filed by him. It is also a well established fact that process of immigration is always subject to fulfillment of certain essential conditions which in the present case were subject to IELTS score and the payment of visa application fee which has not been done by the Complainant, which means that the Complainant himself has failed to complete the essential requirements of the immigration.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   

10.

Announced

02/06/2016                                                                            Sd/-    

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-    

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-    

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”