Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/557/2014

Mrs. Rina Kumari Dhawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pankaj Chandgothia

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/557/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	20/08/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	02/03/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rina Kumari Dhawan wife of Sh.Deepak Dhawan, R/o #1499, Phase 3B2, Mohali.

……Complainant

Versus

 

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Director.

 

……Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:    SH. P.L. AHUJA             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                    

Present:      Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant had entered into a contract with the Opposite Party expressing willingness to retain services of the company for receiving professional services with respect to preparation and submission of her immigration case under Skilled Independent category for Canada (Annexure C-1). It has been further averred that the Opposite Party caused the Complainant to enter into another contract with one M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy (a front body created by Opposite Party), in order to charge double from the Complainant. It has been further averred that the Complainant applied through the Chandigarh Branch in the month of Jan. 2007 (File No. 40258) under the Bronze package offered by the Opposite Party and a total payment of approx. Rs.63,000/- was paid in three installments. In addition Rs.22,000/- (in Dollar rate existing at that time) were paid to the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi as application fee (Receipts Annexure C-2 to C-5). It has been alleged that the Opposite Party never informed the Complainant about the status of her application for over six years. The Complainant also visited the office of the Opposite Party at Chandigarh several times, but she was put off on one pretext or the other by the Opposite Party saying that her application was under process by the Canadian Embassy and that she would soon be successful. But all these promises turned out to be false, when the Complainant received an e-mail from the Canadian Embassy saying that the Canadian Govt. had decided not to process her application and refunded the fee of Cnd $550 through Cheque/DD on 18.11.2013 and the same had been collected on 13.12.2013 (Annexure C-6). Thereafter, the Complainant sent an e-mail on 16.12.2013 to the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.63,000/- as the Canadian Embassy had not even processed her application and already returned the entire amount (Annexure C-7). In reply to the Complainant’s demand of refund, the Opposite Party disapproved it through e-mail dated 30.12.2013 (Annexure C-8). In these circumstances, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that no deficiency could be attributed towards it as the case of the Complainant was terminated on account of change in law by the Canadian High Commission and that it has played its part by preparing, filing and submitting her application before the Canadian High Commission. It has been further pleaded that the Complainant had entered into a separate contract of engagement dated 19.1.2007 with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy Dubai (in short M/s GSBC) to whom she paid an amount of US$400 against receipt Annexure R-5. The said amount of US$400 cannot be claimed by the Complainant from the Opposite Party as the said Company is a separate independent company having a separate legal entity and accordingly the Opposite Party is not liable with regard to the same nor liable for refund of the professional fee paid to M/s GSBC. It has further been pleaded that the Complainant is not entitled to any refund in view of Clause 8 and 9 of the Contract of Agreement which was signed by her with the Opposite Party wherein it has been specifically agreed that the time shall not be the essence of the contract. It was not the fault of the Opposite Party that a delay had occurred rather it was on account of the large backlog of the cases with the Canadian High Commission that the case of the Complainant could not be processed by the Canadian High Commission and in the meantime a new law came into force due to which the case of the Complainant was not processed. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties. 

 

6.      A perusal of the file reveals that the Complainant entered into a contract dated 19.1.2007 with the Opposite Party (WWICS) for preparation and submission of her immigration case under Skilled Independent category for Canada (Annexure C-1). Furthermore, the Opposite Party made the Complainant to enter into another Agreement on the same day i.e. 19.1.2007 with the Global Strategic Business Consultancy (GSBC), which is available from Pg. 16 to 24 of the paper book. Annexure C-2 to C-5 are the various Receipts vide which the fee was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. Annexure C-6 is the copy of the Cheque of the refund of fee of Cnd $550 sent by Canadian High Commission on 18.11.2013 which was collected by the Complainant on 13.12.2013, with the submission of the Canadian Embassy as that the Canadian Government had decided not to process the application of the Complainant, so the fee paid to the Canadian Embassy was refunded. Annexure C-7 is the              e-mail dated 16.12.2013 sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party for the refund of Rs.63,000/- which she paid to it as fee. Annexure C-8 is the responding e-mail of the Opposite Party that as a part of Contract, the fee will not be refunded to the Complainant.

 

7.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that M/s GSBC is a separate independent company having a separate legal entity and accordingly, the Opposite Party is not liable with regard to the same nor liable for refund of the professional fee paid to aforesaid M/s GSBC, as the Complainant has not made the same as party. It has been further stated by Opposite Party that it played its part by preparing, filing and submitting the application of the Complainant before the Canadian High Commission. The case of the Complainant was terminated on account of change in law by the Canadian High Commission, therefore the relevant fee was refunded to her by the Canadian High Commission.

 

8.      In our opinion though the Complainant has not made M/s GSBC a party, still Opposite Party has to prove how the Complainant offered money to a company in Dubai. Pertinently the Complainant did not go to Dubai for getting the contract entered into with said M/s GSBC. As per Annexure C-3 (fee receipt) if fee was received by Opposite Party for M/s GSBC, then onus to explain the same is on the Opposite Party only how it received it on behalf of M/s GSBC. Second agreement as per pg. 16 of the Complaint shows that Opposite Party has created another shield for its own benefit. Opposite Party knows better that for what purpose the said M/s GSBC was required.

 

9.      Further, it is important to note that only Col. No.18 in the first contract (Annexure C-1) and Col. No.17 in the second contract bear the signatures of the Complainant inspite of having Column of Complainant’s signature on each and every page of both the Contracts. Meaning thereby that both the consents were taken by the Opposite Party in hurry without explaining the terms and conditions to the Complainant in detail. Furthermore, refund Clause of Annexure C-1 has mention “50 percent refund in case of Australia”. But when the application of the Complainant was for Canada, then getting this kind of agreement signed from the Complainant by the Opposite Party clearly points out towards unfair trade practice. Interestingly, both the Agreements i.e. with WWICS and GSBC are of the same date i.e. 19.1.2007.

 

10.      If Opposite Party itself was not competent enough to proceed the case of the Complainant to the Canadian High Commission, then there was no reason for it to get into any kind of contract/ agreement with the Complainant. This act of involving its innocent Clients unnecessarily into Agreement with unknown parties for its own selfish motive proves deficiency in service.

 

11.      There is a condition at Sr. No.10 of Page No.12 of Annexure C-1, which reads as under:-

“10. Refund:

 

The services provided by the company being professional in nature, the entire fee is non-refundable.”

 

But the same is not signed by the Complainant, therefore, the same is not binding upon her. In our considered opinion, if the Canadian High Commission can refund the whole fee amount, at least a part of fee must be refunded to the Complainant by the Opposite Party after deducting processing fee at the most to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

 

12.      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint should succeed. The same is accordingly, allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.43,000/- to the Complainant after deducting Rs.20,000/- as its processing fee out of Rs.63,000/- paid by her towards the fee.

 

[b]  To pay Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from paying costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

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

Announced

02^nd March,2015                                         

Sd/-

  (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER