Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/101/2016

Smt. Parveena Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amarbir Singh Dhaliwal

13 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/101/2016
Date of Institution	:	11/02/2016
Date of Decision	:	13/07/2017

 

Smt. Parveena Jindal wife of Prem Kumar Jindal, resident of H.No.924, Asheerbad Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, South East Asia Operations A-12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Mohali 160055, through its agent/ representative.

2.     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, South East Asia Operations A-12, SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Near Hotel Aroma, Chandigarh, through its agent/representative.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Amarbir Dhaliwal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant wished to migrate to Canada for a better salary and higher standard of living.  Accordingly, somewhere in the month of June 2014, the complainant visited OP-2 and she was told that she fulfilled all the criteria required as per the immigration initiative. On 4.7.2014, the complainant visited OP-2 and paid Rs.2,02,248/-. On 15.7.2014, the complainant again visited the OPs office and was made to sign a contract.  The complainant was told that she was required to submit her educational degrees/diplomas alongwith her IELTS certificate with minimum score of 5.0.  The complainant was shocked to hear the same, as it was not informed to her by the OPs when she visited for hiring their professional services. The complainant informed that she had never taken the IELT test upon which the OPs told her that even if she supplied the IELTS certificates within a few months, her application shall be processed without any hindrance. Accordingly, the complainant took the test and obtained a score of 6.0 and received the certificate on 22.10.2014. But in the meanwhile the OPs paid no importance to the case of the complainant and did not even fill the application form. The complainant downloaded the entire application forms from the website and filled up the same except form 8 and emailed the same alongwith her educational degrees/diplomas on 3.11.2014. However, the case of the complainant for immigration to Morden Manitoba, Canada was rejected which caused a huge financial loss to her. The complainant visited OP-2 and sought refund, but, the OP vide email dated 27.1.2015 rejected the same.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written reply have averred that the complainant was duly advised and guided with respect to her immigration case. According to the OPs, as per the contract, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was received as professional fee and an amount of Rs.22,248/- was received as service tax which is non-refundable. It has been stated that the complainant herself was responsible for the delay in filing of her case as is clear from the date of issue of her IELTS score card, which was issued on 27.10.2014 after receipt of which the case of the complainant was duly filed on 10.11.2014 with the Manitoba Authorities who vide email dated 19.1.2015 stated that the application of the complainant had not been chosen for interview.  It has been contended that the OPs had performed their part of the contract by preparing and filing the case of the complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The case of the complainant is that she paid Rs.2,02,248/- to the OPs on 4.7.2014 for hiring their professional services for migration to Canada.  On 15.7.2014, when the complainant visited the OPs to sign a contract, then only she came to know that she need to submit educational degrees alongwith IELTS certificate with minimum score of 5, which was never informed by the OPs to the complainant beforehand. The sole grouse of the complainant is that the OPs did not take essential steps to appropriately forward her case to Manitoba authorities, therefore, the same was rejected due to negligent attitude and inappropriate services of the OPs. 
7.         The stand taken by the OPs is that the case of the complainant could not proceed further due to non-submission of the required documents within the prescribed time. It has been contended that after receiving the required documents from the complainant, the application of the complainant for  the City of Morden Manitoba was duly filed with the Manitoba Authorities vide email dated 10.11.2014 as per Annexure R-4 which was duly acknowledged by the Manitoba Authorities vide email dated 10.11.2014. Further as per email dated 19.1.2015, (Annexure R-6), the OPs made a query with Manitoba authorities that despite applying the case of the complainant on 10.11.2014, it is more than 2 months that they (OPs) have not received any communication with regard to the release of the file of the complainant.  In response to the same, the Manitoba authorities sent an email dated 19.1.2015 (Annexure R-7) stating that the application of the complainant could not be chosen for interview.  Later it has been contended that the complainant did not submit the complete documents as per contract of engagement which was the result of failure of her effort to migrate to Canada.
8.         So far as the allegation of the OPs regarding non submission of the required documents is concerned, no evidence to that effect has been placed on record by the OPs to prove the same. On the contrary, it has been stated by the OPs that the case of the complainant was duly filed on 10.11.2014 to Manitoba authorities who vide email dated 19.1.2015 intimated that the application of the complainant has been rejected.  Both these facts are contradictory to each other. One way the OPs are stating that they sent the application form of the complainant in complete form to the concerned authorities and on the other way they are alleging that it was fault on the part of the complainant to submit the complete documents. The OPs have mentioned duties of the company at page 25 of the written statement which read as under :-

 “1.   Duties of the Company :

        In consultation with its associates at various locations the Company shall provide the following services to its client :

a)     Assess the client according to the information provided by the client in the assessment form.

b)     Assist the client in preparation of the case;

c)      Review and identify for submission required documents and supporting evidences;

d)     Submit the complete official application to the Morden Community Development Corporation (MCDC) on the receipt of all requisite documents and information from the client ;

e)     Handle all correspondence with the concerned Provincial Authority pertaining to client’s case;

f)      After receipt of Support letter and invitation for Exploratory Visit from MCDC, get the client to submit application for Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC).

g)     Assist the client to complete an exploratory visit to Morden to facilitate him/her to attend the pre-arranged interview with the Manitoba PNP in Winnipeg, if required, as special circumstances may negate the need for an exploratory visit.

h)     Intimate the requirements sent by concerned Provincial Authority, during the progress of the case.

i)      Asist the client in keeping the file up to date;

j)      Advise the client about any subsequent changes in the provincial laws and any subsequent conditions applicable to meet the provincial requirements.

k)     Further, Letter of Approval does not guarantee the Client successful immigration to Canada & the company is not responsible for any job guarantee on his/her arrival to Canada.”

However, as per the case of the complainant, the OPs have neither supported the complainant nor they have performed their duties upto the level as mentioned above. It seems that the OPs were not competent enough to proceed the case of the complainant to Manitoba authorities. If it was so, then there was no reason for them to enter into any kind of agreement/ contract with the complainant.  This act of involving their innocent clients unnecessarily into agreement with unknown parties for their own selfish motives and later leaving them in lurch proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.         After a careful perusal of the file, we feel that no one can estimate the pain and agony of a person who could not get the desired destination as in the present case which was the ultimate dream of the complainant. Further, even after spending a huge amount, the complainant had to face failure of her attempt to settle abroad. Hence, the act of the OPs in handling the case of the complainant in a negligent and careless manner and later non-refunding, rather retaining money of the complainant for a long period and forcing her to indulge into the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service on their part.
10.         Undoubtedly the complainant hired the services of the OPs for proceeding her case to settle abroad, but, it is also a matter of fact that the OPs retained and used the huge amount deposited by the complainant for a long period of time.  We feel that a reasonable part of the total amount must be refunded to the complainant by the OPs after deducting some amount towards expenses borne by them for processing the case. We are of the opinion that Rs.30,000/- would be just, fair and reasonable amount for the OPs to deduct from the total amount.  After deducting aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/- from Rs.2,02,248/-, an amount of Rs.1,72,248/- is still payable by the OPs and they are bound to pay the same.
11.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  OPs are directed :-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.1,72,248/- to the complainant as explained above.

(ii)    To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

(iii)   To also pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.         This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/07/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member