BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.145 of 2014

Date of Instt. 6.5.2014

Date of Decision :12.12.2014

Shelly wife of Raj Kumar Verma R/o 145/56, Vijay Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd, 3rd Floor, Midland Financial Centre, Plot No.21-22, G.T.Road, Near ICICI Bank Ltd, Jalandhar City.

3. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, FZCO Office No.315-316, West Wing 3, Dubai Airport Free Zone, Dubai(UAE) through its representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Sohit Talwar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.GPS Rana Adv., counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2.

Complaint against opposite party No.3 dismissed.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties in July 2005 for preparation and submissions of immigration application for grant of permanent Visa for Canada(Federal) through opposite party No.1 having its head office at Chandigarh and branch office at Jalandhar. The complainant had opted for gold package offered by it, the opposite party No.2 in addition to immigration consultancy service for ensuring the overseas professional assessment/endorsements, settlement and placement services. As per terms and conditions of the contract, the complainant opted for gold package and deposited the separate charges for preparation and submission of immigration case and extra charges for overseas professional assessment/endorsements, settlement and placement services. The complainant deposited a sum of 1200 US Dollars with the opposite party No.1 at Jalandhar for overseas professional assessment/endorsements, settlement and placement services. This amount of 1200 US Dollars was meant for providing services to the complainant in Canada for overseas professional assessment/endorsements, settlement and placement services after getting the visa from Canadian Embassy. The complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.1,04,000/-. As a general policy, the Embassy of Canada cancelled all the visa application on bulk basis from 2005 to 2008. As such, the money paid by the complainant went waste. Since the complainant did not visit Canada as such, she did not avail any service for overseas professional assessment/endorsements, settlement and placement services in Canada, which amount the opposite parties are liable to refund to the complainant. As per refund clause of the contract, "The company undertakes to provide full refund to the client of the fee paid by the client to the company excluding process fee, levied by the processing visa office and other expenses incurred by the client in the event, visa officer rejects client's case and the company is unable to revert such decision by way of judicial review, refilling of the case etc". As the complainant could not get visa nor visited Canada nor availed any other service in Canada, as such, the complainant is entitled to full refund of the money deposited by her with the opposite parties. This fact came to the knowledge of the complainant in August 2013, when the Embassy of Canada returned the visa fee deposited by the complainant through the opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times with a request to refund the money but to no effect. The complainant also served the opposite party with legal notice dated 25.3.2014 but it did not evoke any positive response. On such like averments the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the complete amount received from the complainant alongwith interest. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present case is a case of change in immigration rules and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of clause 8 & 9 of the Contract of Engagement dated 6.8.2005 wherein the complainant had agreed that the answering opposite parties No.1 and 2 will not be held liable for any delay occurring due to the backlog of the cases or for any other reason at the visa post. The case of the complainant was duly prepared and filed in the best possible manner with the Canadian High Commission on 31.8.2005 and the complainant was alloted a file number vide their letter dated 22.9.2005 wherein it has stated by the Canadian High Commission that it shall take minimum 60 months to process the case however the same can not be guaranteed. Thus the answering opposite parties No.1 and 2 have rendered all the services which the complainant was entitled to so as to get her case processed by the Canadian High Commission. However as a bad luck of the complainant, the Canadian Government introduced a new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act which became a law on 29.6.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by the operation of law. The copy of the letter dated 24.5.2013 informing the complainant through the answering opposite parties about the change in the law is attached. Since the application of the complainant was received by the Canadian High Commission on 2.9.2005, her case was also terminated by the operation of law. The amount of US $ 1200 has been alleged to have been paid by the complainant to M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai(in short M/s GSBC) which is a distinct & Separate legal entity and is a company incorporated at Dubai. The complainant paid US $ 1200 vide drafts dated 19.10.2005 in favour of M/s GSBC Dubai for availing post landing services with whom the complainant has entered into a separate contract of engagement dated 6.8.2005 which is attached. The said amount of US $ 1200 can not be claimed by the complainant from the answering opposite parties No.1 & 2and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

5. In support of her complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed her evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/12 and closed evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant.

8. Ex.OP1/1 is contract of engagement executed between the complainant and opposite parties No.1 and 2. It is not disputed that complainant availed the service of opposite parties No.1 and 2 for going to Canada. According to the complainant, the complainant has opted for Gold package and deposited the separate charges for overseas professional assessment/endorsements, settlement and placement services. Further according to the complainant she deposited a sum of 1200 US Dollars with opposite party No.1 at Jalandhar which was meant for providing service to the complainant in Canada i.e post landing facilities in Canada. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 applied for immigration of the complainant to Canada but as a general policy, the Embassy of Canada cancelled all the visa application on bulk basis from 2005 to 2008 in view of change of law. At the time of arguments counsel for the complainant only pressed for the relief of refund of 1200 US Dollars which were paid to opposite party No.1 for post landing facilities. Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 contended that 1200 US Dollars were received by opposite party No.3 i.e Global Strategic Business Consultancy and there was separate contract between complainant and opposite party No.3 which is situated at Dubai (UAE) and the complainant is not entitled to claim for refund of above said amount from opposite parties No.1 and 2. In support of above contention he has relied upon First Appeal No.1284 of 2010 titled as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd and another Vs. Kulwinder Kumar Madar decided on 20.2.2014 by out own Hon'ble State Commission. We have carefully considered the above contention advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and 2. The above cited authority is on its own facts, as in that case it was found that complainant had entered into an independent agreement with opposite party No.3 i.e M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy and amount has been received by that company. In contract of engagement Ex.OP1/1 executed between complainant and opposite parties No.1 and 2, it is specifically mentioned as under:-

"If the client has opted for Gold Package offered by Global Strategic Business Consultancy, UAE(GSBC) then in addition to the Immigration Consultancy Services, the company would ensure that overseas professional assessment/endorsements, settlement and placement services are rendered to such client".

9. In the present case the complainant had availed the gold package. So as per above clause in the contract of engagement in addition to the Immigration Consultancy Services, the company i.e opposite parties No.1 and 2 had under taken to ensure that overseas professional assessment/endorsements, settlement and placement services are rendered to such client i.e complainant. Further under the head duties of the client in clause (K) it is mentioned as under:-

"Acquire information, knowledge, education and skills as advised by the company and its associate Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation, UAE through its associates for clearing immigration process".

10. So from this clause it is evident that opposite party No.3 is in fact associate of opposite parties No.1 and 2. Further in clause 12 of the Contract of Engagement it is mentioned as under:-

"The company reserves the right to use the information and/or name of the client for publicity, advertisement, reference and for any other purpose that the company and GSBC & its associate consider appropriate".

11. So from this clause it is evident that opposite party No.3 is in fact associate of opposite parties No.1 and 2. The complainant had not gone to Dubai to execute any separate agreement with opposite party No.3. The agreement with opposite party No.3 was executed in the office of opposite parties No.1 and 2. Ex.C1 is agreement executed by complainant with opposite party No.3 on 6.8.2005 and contract of engagement or agreement Ex.OP1/1 executed between complainant and opposite parties No.1 and 2 is also dated 6.8.2005. So both the agreements appears to have been executed at the same time in the office of opposite parties No.1 and 2. It is in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant that this amount of 1200 US Dollars was meant for providing service to the deponent i.e complainant in Canada for overseas professional assessment/ endorsements, settlement and placement services after getting the visa from Candian Embassy. It is further in her affidavit that 1200 US Dollars which were paid by the complainant, were received by opposite party No.1. It is further in her affidavit that complainant entered into agreement jointly and at the time with regard to the professional services or overseas professional assessment with opposite party No.1 only on the representation and asking of it. From the perusal of contract of engagement Ex.C1 and contract of engagement Ex.OP1/1, it is evident that the same were executed at the same time in the office of opposite parties No.1 and 2. Both are of the same date. Opposite party No.3 company is situated in Dubai. It is not the case of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 that complainant had gone to Dubai to execute any separate agreement with opposite party No.3. In para 9 of their written reply opposite parties No.1 and 2 have pleaded that without prejudice to their rights an amount of US Dollars 500 have already been approved towards refund by M/s GSBC, Dubai as a special case. In case the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have nothing to do with opposite party No.3, then how they came to know that opposite party No.3 has approved the refund of 500 US Dollars to the complainant. From the above circumstances it is clear that agreement or contract engagement Ex.OP1/1 and contract of engagement Ex.C1 were executed between the parties in the office of opposite parties No.1 and 2 at the same time and 1200 US Dollars were received by opposite parties No.1 and 2 on behalf of its associates i.e opposite party No.3. The complainant never went to Canada nor availed any post landing facility there as her case for immigration to Canada was rejected by Canadian Embassy. So complainant is entitled to refund of 1200 US Dollars paid by her to the opposite parties.

12. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to refund 1200 US Dollars or its equivalent amount in rupees as per exchange rate prevalent today to the complainant alongwith 9 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. Complainant is also awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation and further Rs.3000 as litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.12.2014 Member President