Punjab

StateCommission

A/915/2016

Navreet Kaur Bhinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Arun Kumar Batra

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.915 of 2016

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 05.12.2016

                                                          Order Reserved on : 13.02.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   15.02.2017

 

Navneet Kaur Bhinder w/o Yadvinder Singh, aged 31 years, resident of H.No. 2529, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali

 

                                                              Appellant/Complainant           

    Versus

 

1       Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Service Ltd, through its    Manager Director/Director Corporate Office: A-12, Industrial           Area, Phase VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

2.      Branch Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Service         Ltd, SCO No. 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

 

                                                          Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  SAS Nagar, Mohali.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellant                         : Sh.A.K. Batra, Advocate

                                       :

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant preferred this appeal against order dated 19.10.2016 of District Forum SAS Nagar, Mohali dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The order passed by District Forum has been assailed in this appeal by the appellant. The appellant is the complainant in the original complaint before District Forum and respondents of this appeal are OPs therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that she approached OPs for permanent residence to Canada for obtaining their services. On submission of her resume, she was informed by OPs to arrange two sponsors for sponsoring her and her family. The complainant deposited Rs.1,12,360/- and Rs.33,708/- with OPs on 31.07.12, as service retain, vide receipt nos. 1012121626 and 1012121628. File no. 70317 was given to the complainant by the OPs and informed that her case would be finalized between 12 to 24 months and as soon as the sponsors are arranged. The OPs entered into agreement with complainant on 31.07.2012 for Federal Processing-post Provincial Selection Manitoba PNP skilled category and OPs got signed another agreement with Global Strategic Business Consultancy. The complainant was further told by OPs in August 2012 that sponsors were ready and she was asked by OPs to deposit USD 4800 in favour of Global Strategic Business Consultancy, sister concern of the OPs. The complainant deposited USD 4800 on 31.08.2012. The complainant spent Rs.10,000/- as IELTS fee and around Rs.15,000/- for availing coaching of IELTS. She cleared the IELTS and had to remain on leave without pay for one month for preparing for her IELTS examination. After waiting one year, the OPs did not arrange for any sponsors for the complainant and on 06.09.2013, complainant wrote to OPs regarding non-arrangement of the sponsorship by them. The complainant also informed OPs that as a policy decision only one sponsor was required, but OPs could not arrange sponsors for the complainant. The complainant received a letter dated Nil from the sister concern of OPs, asking her to invest the refund amount in their Real Estate Projects. The OPs invested the amount of the complainant in Real Estate Project  and never bothered to refund the amount. The complainant was asked by the OPs to fill in refund application and she submitted her refund application on 09.08.2014. The complainant received e-mail on 03.09.2014 informing her about approval of the refund of amount i.e. USD 4800 and Rs.75,000/- only, which amount would be paid within a period of 120 days after the consent letter was received by OPs. The complainant wrote e-mail on 08.09.2014 about unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant also sent legal notice through her advocate for refund of complete amount  on 17.12.2014 and postal receipts are attached. The complainant was sent e-mail on 16.01.2015 by OPs to collect the amount of Rs.75,000/- and thereafter complainant received another e-mail dated 17.02.2015 as reminder of the earlier email. The complainant received another e-mail dated 15.06.2015 regarding refund of the amount. The complainant had received cheque no. 439742 dated 14.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.75,000/- against amount of Rs.1,46,068. The OPs indulged in unfair trade practice by withholding the amount of the complainant of Rs.1,46,068 and USD 4800 illegally for a period of more than three years. The complainant also spent Rs.25,000/- for IELETS test and IELTS coaching fee as well. The complainant prayed in the complaint that OPs be directed to pay sum of Rs.71068/-, which has been paid less by the OPs along with interest @ 24% p.a from 31.07.2012 till actual date of payment. OPs be further directed to pay interest @ 24% on Rs.75,000/- and USD 4800, deposited by the complainant on 31.07.2012 and 31.08.2012 from the date of deposit till date of actual payment. OPs further directed to pay Rs.3 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.21,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed  written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred that complainant had retained the services of OPs under Manitoba Affidavit of Support category. The complainant's document were forwarded to Canada for obtaining the settlement plan and lot of efforts were made. However, the affidavit of support could not be obtained and in the meantime, the complainant applied for refund and as per the consent letters, she has voluntarily settled the matter in dispute and has received the amount in full and final settlement of her claim. It was further averred that once the complainant had given her consent letter, there was no question of paying the balance amount to the complainant. Out of amount of Rs.1,12,360/- an  amount of Rs.12,360/- and out of amount of Rs.33,708/- an amount of Rs.3,708/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant, which was totally non-refundable. Rest of the averments were denied by OPs and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj authorized representative of OPs along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum SAS Nagar Mohali dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 19.10.2016. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum SAS Nagar Mohali dated 19.10.2016, the complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at preliminary stage of admission of appeal and also examined the record of the case.

6.      The simple point pressed before us is that the final settlement of the claim arrived at between the parties is not entirely up to the satisfaction of the complainant now appellant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant by holding that complainant has already settled the dispute with OPs by receiving the amount from OPs and executed the consent letter voluntarily of her own. Undoubtedly, the complainant had already received 4800 USD Dollars and Rs.75,000/- on the basis of mutual settlement arrived at between the parties. The complainant now feels dissatisfied with the amount of mutual settlement arrived at between the parties. The contract of engagement was executed between the parties with regard to services provided by OPs to complainant. We have examined the consent letter Ex.OP-1 dated 13.11.2014 on the record. The complainant gave her consent to receive an amount of Rs.75,000/- only towards refund. The ink used in filling body of the consent letter does tally with the signatures of the complainant on the record dated 13.11.2014. Similarly there is another consent letter Ex.OP-2 dated 13.11.2014 executed by the complainant, vide which she consented to receive 4800 USD Dollars towards refund. It is recorded in the consent letter that although the case of the complainant is not admissible in the terms of the contract signed by OPs yet as a special case, the OPs have mutually settled the dispute with the complainant. Both the consent letters do not appear to be filled in with different ink. The consent letters Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 dated 13.11.2014 have, thus, established that dispute has been mutually settled between the parties. The cheques are Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5, which were issued by OPs to complainant with regard to disbursement of the above amount of mutual settlement. There is neither pleading nor proof of the complainant that these consent letters were either wangled by means of coercion or undue influence or fraud. Neither there is any such plea taken by complainant nor any such substance on the record is adduced to substantiate it. The Hon'ble National Commission has held in Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd and others versus Gagandeep Singh Monga in Revision Petition no. 3613 of 2014 decided on 16.04.2014 that since the complainant had already settled the dispute with OPs by receiving amount of Rs.15,000/- and 2500 US Dollar, hence, the complainant is estopped from re-agitating the dispute already settled by filing a consumer complaint. Considering the verification of the consent letters by the complainant herself that she has properly read and understood the contents of the settlement, hence we do not find any ground to admit the appeal for regular hearing. Consequently, appeal is dismissed in limine on the basis of satisfaction of the claim of complainant on mutual settlement with her consent.

7.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

8.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                              (J.S GILL)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

February 15,  2017                                                             

(ravi)