Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/202/2016

Paramjit Singh Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mashwinder Singh Adv.

04 May 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	202 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	18.03.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	04.05.2017

 

 

 

 

Paramjit Singh Sandhu s/o Late Sh.Harbans Singh, R/o H.No.1804, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali.       

             …..Complainant

Versus

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., South East Asia Operation, through its Managing Director, SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

2^nd Address:

Plot No.A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.

                               ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Mashwinder Singh, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Raman Walia, Counsel for OP.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant on the assurance of the Opposite Party to get permanent residency for Canada within stipulated time, entrusted a sum of Rs.2,02,248/- through cheque No.107422, dated 3.12.2014, which was duly encashed by the Opposite Party.  It is averred that the complainant was having requisite qualification and documents for the purpose of immigration to Canada and from time to time, he completed all the formalities in the shape of documents etc., which were told by the OP.  It is also averred that the complainant has been regularly visiting the Opposite Party but no positive response was given nor the complainant was given satisfactory reply by the Opposite Party.  It is stated that more than one year had lapsed but nothing effective has been done by the Opposite Party.  It is also stated that the Opposite Party has failed to apply the documents for the purpose of permanent residence of the complainant for immigration to Canada, hence it failed to render proper service to the complainant despite receiving huge amount.  A legal notice was also sent to the Opposite Party, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating that the complainant had retained the services of the Opposite Party by entering into two Contract of Engagements; one Contract of Engagement dated 3.12.2014 was for receiving professional services with respect to preparation, submission and processing of Immigration case for grant of Nomination Certificate on behalf of the Client and his dependent family members under the ‘Regional Labour Market Demand Stream’ of Nova Scotia Nominee Program (NSNP) and another Contract of Engagement dated 3.12.2014 was for receiving professional services with respect to preparation, submission and processing of Immigration case under Federal Processing – Post Provincial Selection, accordingly two Contract of Engagements dated 3.12.2014 were executed between the complainant and Opposite Party (Ann.R-1 & R-2).  It is stated that as per the said contracts, the complainant had made a total payment of Rs.1.80 lacs to the Opposite Party in relation to both the Contract of Engagements as regards the professional fee and the said amount paid by the complainant is totally non-refundable in view of the different clauses of the Contract of Engagements and further an amount of Rs.22,248/- has also been paid by the complainant towards service tax as would be clear from receipt dated 3.12.2014 (Ann.R-3 & E-4), which is non-refundable having been gone into the Government Account.  It is submitted that the sole purpose of retaining the client was to keep the Immigration case of the complainant ready to be filed with all necessary documents, without any delay, as & when the Occupation list is declared open by Nova Scotia Provincial Authorities, Canada and accordingly, on the basis of the declaration of the complainant given to this effect, the Opposite Party kept his case active and as such are entitled to retain the fees so as to enable the Opposite Party to file the case of the complainant whenever the new list of occupation is issued by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  It is also submitted that the said list has not yet been issued by the Immigration Authorities and as such, the Opposite Party is entitled to retain the fees.  It is pleaded that even otherwise, as per Clause 5 of the Declaration form, dated 3.12.2014, the Opposite Party is entitled to deduct an amount of Rs.60,000/- till the time the new list of occupation is issued by Nova Scotia Provincial Authorities, Canada, therefore, in view of the Declaration form entered into by the complainant, the Opposite Party company is always ready to refund the amount of Rs.90,000/- out of the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs paid by the complainant.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply of Opposite Party.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is such a case, which reflects the unscrupulous activities of the Opposite Party. 

 

7]       Admittedly, the complainant entered into two Contract of Engagements, both dated 3.12.2014 (Ann.R-1 & R-2) with the Opposite Party and paid an amount of Rs.2,02,248/- (Ann.R-1 & R-2).  The Opposite Party took various pleas in their reply justifying their stand for not refunding the amount paid by the complainant, when were asked to refund by the complainant.

 

8]       It is the plea of the complainant that despite the payment of such a huge amount of Rs.2,02,248/- to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party failed to provide any service to him.  It is also pleaded that when the complainant approached the Opposite Party for refund of his money, he was asked to write an application qua refund of his amount mentioning the contents as narrated by the official of OP.

 

9]       There is an absence of evidence showing any services been provided to the complainant in regard to which the parties have entered into two Contracts of Engagement, both dated 3.12.2014 (Ann.R-1 & R-2). 

 

10]     It is pertinent to mention that at the time of arguments, the OP offered the refund of Rs.90,000/- out of Rs.1.50 lacs claiming that Rs.22,248/- has been paid towards service tax to the government, so are unable to refund that amount apart from Rs.60,000/- which the Opposite Party is entitled to deduct. The offer so made by the OP was not acceptable to the complainant on the ground that in the absence of any service, the Opposite Party has no right to retain the money and as well there is no valid proof on record regarding payment of service tax to the government.  We do agree with the submissions of the complainant and are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the whole refund of his amount, which the Opposite Party arbitrarily refused to refund. Record reveals that the amount of Rs.2,02,248/- (Ann.C-1 & C-2) paid by the complainant under valid receipts is lying idle with the Opposite Party causing constant financial loss to the complainant.  Since, the deposit of the abovesaid amount, the Opposite Party rendered no services to the complainant, so its stand to usurp the money of the complainant is unjustified.

 

11]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party is writ large.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the same is allowed against the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.2,02,248/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 3.12.2014 till its payment;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant on account of deficient services of OP;
3. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to also pay interest on the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- @9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its payment, apart from complying with the directions as at sub-para (i) & (iii) above.

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

Announced

4^th May, 2017                

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER