Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1012/2016

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N S Jagdeva

07 Nov 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/1012/16
Date  of  Institution	:	15/11/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	07/11/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Kewal Kumar, R/o H.No. 8381, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District Mohali.

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1)   Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2)   Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited,   A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, District Mohali, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Rohit Kumar (hereinafter called the Complainant) has filed this consumer complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited & Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he availed the services of the Opposite Parties for preparation & submission of his immigration case for Canada under Skilled Worker Category, by paying Rs.50,000/- on 23.06.2012. Subsequently, the Complainant was made to sign an agreement dated 23.06.2012 in favour of GSBC for which 1300 USD was also deposited by him. However, in the month of August, 2012, the Complainant was informed that due to closure of the Federal Skill Programme, his case could not be processed and that he would be shifted to Nova Scotia Immigrant (State Sponsored Nominee Programme) and the fee paid earlier by him would be adjusted. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties also got signed two more agreements with the Complainant. In pursuance of the said Agreements, the Complainant had further deposited a sum of Rs.78,652/- and 4400 USD on 08.10.2012. Eventually, in the month of May, 2013, the Opposite Parties handed over one fake appointment letter to the Complainant which did not bear any signature or seal of the issuing authority. Completely fed up with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant sought refund of his money, upon which the Opposite Parties refunded only Rs.5,40,000/- out of Rs.7,50,000/- collected by them. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service & indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.

 

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

 

3.          Opposite Parties in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Complainant himself had approached them for availing professional services with respect to his immigration case to Canada and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 23.06.2012 towards professional fee which was totally non-refundable as per the Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-2). It has been urged that the Complainant retained the services of the Opposite Parties for filing of his immigration case under revised occupational list and a declaration form was also signed by the Complainant to that effect (Annexure R-3), however the Occupation under which the immigration case of the Complainant was to be filed, was not in demand, accordingly an amount of Rs.20,000/- was refunded to him. Thereafter, the Complainant again showed his interest for availing the professional services of the Opposite Parties under Nova Scotia Immigrant Nominee Program – Job Offer and accordingly on his request, his immigration case was converted to Nova Scotia Immigrant Nominee Program, whereupon he had entered into a Contract of Engagement dated 30.08.2012 with the Opposite Parties and deposited Rs.70,000/- towards professional fee (non-refundable) and an amount of Rs.8,652/- towards service tax. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had received a genuine job offer from Canada. However, later on the job offer issued to the Complainant, was withdrawn by the employer as he was not interested to join as such and thereafter, sought refund. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties refunded an amount of Rs.20,000/- and USD 8491 equivalent to Rs.5,38,441/- in respect of his immigration case vide consent letter (Annexure R-1 colly). Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.          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.

 

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

 

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties have also perused the record.

 

7.          On perusal of the various e-mails placed on record by the Complainant at Pg.96 to 113 of the paper book, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties have failed to render proper services to the Complainant, due to which certainly undue harassment had been caused to the Complainant. It is important to note that in Para 11 of their written reply, the Opposite Parties have themselves admitted that they had refunded an amount of Rs.5,38,414/- to the Complainant out of the amount paid by him. This makes a clear pointer towards the fact that the aforesaid amount was refunded by the Opposite Parties only due to the fact that no services at all were provided by them, despite collecting a huge amount of money from the Complainant. All this goes to prove that the conduct of the Opposite Parties was not satisfactory in any manner, in as much as, they themselves were not clear about the Schemes that is why the Complainant was asked to apply under several Schemes one after the other and in this way Opposite Parties have extracted a huge money from the Complainant on the one pretext or the other, but in none of the Schemes Opposite Parties were successful, therefore, to our mind the Complainant is entitled to have complete refund of his hard earned money, along with compensation and costs of the present proceedings. 

 

8.          In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, for unfair trade practice and harassment suffered by the Complainant; 

 

[c]  To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

 

9.          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

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

Announced

07^th Nov., 2017                                                          

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                Sd/-      

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”