DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Biplab Das s/o Sh. Monoranjan Das, R/o H.No.321-E-Block, PGI.

              ---Complainant

Vs

[1]  Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, SCO No. 2415-2416, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Lt. Col. B.S. Sandhu (Retd.).

[2]  M/s Globale Strategic Business Ltd. C/o Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Mohali (Punjab), 160015, through its Managing Director Lt. Col. B.S. Sandhu (Retd.).

2^nd Address:

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, SCO No. 2415-2416, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

[3]  M/s Globale Strategic Business Ltd. C/o Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Mohali (Punjab), 160015, through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Arvind Sharma.

2^nd Address:

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, SCO No. 2415-2416, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

[Opposite Party No.3 deleted vide order dated 8.8.2012]

---- Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Hitender Kansal, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. Raman Walia, Proxy Counsel for Sh. K.S. Rupal, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.          The instant complaint was initially filed against Opposite Party No.1 (Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited). However, when Opposite Party No. 1 appeared after issuance of notice, an objection was taken by the Opposite Party No. 1 regarding certain payments made by the Complainant to M/s GSBC, Dubai, UAE also. The Complainant later amended his complaint and filed amended complaint against Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 for alleged deficiency in service on account of their inability to send him to Canada/ refund of amount claimed. 

2.          Factually speaking, the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1 in February, 2010 for assistance in immigration consultancy as he wished to settle in Canada. Opposite Party No.1 had suggested a number of Plans, out of which the Complainant had opted for Gold Plan, according to which he paid Rs.45,000/- and 1300 US$ to the Opposite Parties for their services. All documents asked by the Opposite Party No.1 for applying for the visa, were also supplied (Detail of Plans Annex.C-1). The Complainant entered into two contracts with the Opposite Parties on 18.02.2011. One was between Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant; and another was between the Complainant and Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, which was also represented by Opposite Party No.1. All contracts were signed in the premises of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant had thereafter made the required payments mentioned above.

          However, on 8^th July, 2010, the Complainant received a call from Opposite Party No.1 informing him that the Canadian Government had changed its rules with effect from 25^th June, 2010 due to which the Complainant was required to apply for the Visa in accordance with the new rules. The Complainant was very surprised that the Opposite Parties had not filed his application till then, despite being engaged in February, 2010. As the new rules for applying for the visa was not acceptable to the Complainant, he applied for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with the Opposite Parties. However, the Opposite Parties offered to pay back 700 US$ only. This amount was not acceptable to the Complainant. The Complainant issued legal notice dated 01.06.2011 demanding Rs.1,05,500/- which was the complete amount paid (Annexure C-6). As payment was not made by the Opposite Parties, he filed this complaint claiming the relief of refund of Rs.47,000/- and 1300 US$, besides compensation, interest and costs of litigation.

3.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

4.          The Opposite Party No.1 in reply has maintained that the complaint is baseless and frivolous. In fact, the Complainant had entered into two separate contracts of engagement; one with the answering Opposite Party and second with M/s GSBC, Dubai, UAE (Annexure R-1 & Annexure C-2 with the Complaint).  Hence, the answering Opposite Party had received a sum of Rs.47,000/- only from the Complainant. The amount of 1300 US$ was never received by the Opposite Party No.1 and as per receipt dated 2.3.2010 the said amount was paid in favour of M/s GSBC, Dubai, which had not been impleaded as party to the complaint.

5.          On receiving this reply, the Complainant had filed an application for impleading Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 as a party to the complaint. The application was allowed with the consent of Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant was accordingly permitted to file amended complaint to implead M/s GSBC, Dubai, UAE as parties.

          During the proceedings and even before the application for amendment of complaint, Opposite Party No.1 offered a Cheque of Rs.45,000/- to the Complainant which was received by him on 24.01.2012. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were impleaded as parties on 08.08.2012. After notice was issued to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, the Complainant made a statement to the effect that he does not press his complaint against Opposite Party No.3. Hence, its name be deleted from the array of parties.

          On appearance of Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant was offered a Cheque of Rs.55,000/- on 26.10.2012 by the Opposite Party No.2, which the Complainant received under protest. However, as he failed to get the said cheque encashed, he filed an application to direct the Opposite Party No.2 to reissue a fresh Cheque. Accordingly, a fresh cheque dated 02.012.2013 was handed over to the Complainant for Rs.55,000/- on 04.01.2013.

6.          In the meantime, Opposite Party No. 2 filed its reply taking preliminary objection to the effect that it had entered into a separate contract of engagement with the Complainant and was always ready and willing to provide professional services to the Complainant as per the said contract of engagement (Annexure C-2 of the complaint). Answering Opposite Party has maintained that in fact it is the Complainant himself who has to be blamed as he had been duly informed to submit the required documents and to sign the necessary application forms, but he himself chose not to continue with his immigration case. Even though the Complainant was not eligible for any refund as per the contract of engagement, Opposite Party No. 2 had offered to and refunded Rs.55,000/- against the payment of 1300 US$ as a special case. Denying all other contentions of the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  

7.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

8.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; Opposite Party No.3 being deleted from the array of parties, and have perused the record.

9.          The amount paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties has been refunded to him as per the statement recorded, separately. Now, the only issue remains as to whether the Complainant is entitled to any further relief from the Opposite Parties.

10.        Admittedly, the Complainant had engaged the Opposite Parties for assistance in providing immigration consultancy in February, 2010. His application had not been forwarded till 8^th July, 2010 when the immigration rules were changed, due to which the Complainant felt that he did not wish to proceed with his case. He accordingly requested the Opposite Parties for refund of the amount paid by him, but the Opposite Parties did not comply despite receipt of legal notice also. As per the legal notice an amount of Rs.1,05,500/- was claimed as refund. The Complainant has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- against this amount (Rs.45,000/- + Rs.55,000/-).

          It is evident from the facts that the Opposite Parties delayed preparing/ filing the case of the Complainant for immigration to Canada for over 04 months. No reason for this delay has been given by the Opposite Parties in their reply. It has also not been mentioned in the reply whether the case file of the Complainant had been prepared for being filed for immigration before the Canadian High Commission. The Complainant has in the meantime on change of immigration rules, requested the Opposite Parties for refund of his money, which also was not paid by the Opposite Parties despite requests and legal notice. This amount was only paid after the present complaint was filed before this Forum.

11.        Also, even though the complete payment was made by the Complainant in the office of Opposite Party No.1, as per his specific averment, he had to go through exercise of impleading Opposite Party No.2 also as a party before the amount paid to Opposite Party No.2 was refunded to him. It can be seen from the title page that the address of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is the same and both are working together for providing consultancy services for immigration. In these circumstances, the harassment to the Complainant in not only having to wait for the refund but also to implead Opposite Party No.2 as a party before the refund was forthcoming is evident. For the complete exercise, we do not think it would be unjustified if the Opposite Parties be saddled with compensation to be paid to the Complainant for the harassment and delay caused by them.   

12.        We accordingly allow this complaint in favour of the Complainant and direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay interest @9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.45,000/- received from the Complainant, from the date of receipt, till the amount was actually handed over to him before this Forum. Accordingly, Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay interest @9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.55,000/- received from the Complainant, from the date of receipt, till the amount was actually handed over to him before this Forum. The remaining amount of Rs.5500/- be kept as handling/ professional charges by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant, besides paying Rs.5,000/- each as costs of litigation.  

13.        This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay further interest @ 12% p.a. on the decreed amount of interest and compensation from the date of this order, till it is paid, besides the cost of litigation. 

14.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th February, 2013.                                                 

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER