Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the Order dated 09-01-2015, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC/321/2012, this Appeal is preferred by Sri Bidhan Halder, the de facto Complainant of the aforesaid complaint case.

Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent in handling his Visa application, the Appellant moved the Ld. District Forum for due relief.

Heard both sides and perused the documents on record.

Denying all the allegations leveled by the Appellant against it, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent instead blamed the Appellant for his own misfortune contending inter alia that owing to non-furnishing of requisite documents within the stipulated time frame, the case file of the Appellant was closed by the Canadian High Commission and VPF payment was refunded to him.  He further submitted that, although the company discharged all its contractual obligations towards the Appellant, as a good gesture, it agreed to refund Rs. 30,000/- to him.

It is a fact that the Appellant initially failed to furnish all the requisite documents to the Canadian Visa Authority within the given time.  However, it bears mentioning here that, once he realized his inability to meet the deadline, he urged the Appellant to withdraw his previous application and re-file the same to enable him to furnish all the necessary documents.  

Interestingly, though the Respondent in turn agreed in principle to do the needful in this regard and accepted further amount from the Appellant for this purpose, they simply did nothing.  It is curious to note that notwithstanding the Appellant sent emails after emails for months together, the Respondent simply looked the other way without bothering to respond to any of the same.  This is quite unbecoming of any service provider. 

While the Appellant met all the financial demands of the Respondent, quite the most pressing question would be, what service did the latter render to the former, if at all any.  Though it is alleged by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent that the Appellant did not furnish all the requisite documents, he quite surprisingly refrained from spelling out due specifics in this regard and also, why it did not summon the same from the Appellant even once. 

In spite of receipt of due service charge, if one does not render due service, the same clearly points out negligence on the part of the service provider.  In this case, despite receiving additional payment from the Appellant, the Respondent did nothing to re-file the Visa application of the Appellant and follow up the matter with the Visa issuing Authority which is a clear pointer of its gross deficiency in service.  Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the Appellant definitely deserves due relief in the matter.

The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the complaint case contending inter alia that in terms of the agreement executed between them, all disputes ought to be referred to the Arbitrator.  We, however, did not find any force into such contention for the simple reason that it is now the settled position of law that mere incorporation of arbitration clause in an agreement is no bar for the aggrieved consumer to seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

For all these reasons, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and allow this Appeal with a direction to the Respondent to refund 75% of Rs. 1,13,650/- to the Appellant along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made. In case the decreetal sum is not paid within 40 days from this day, Appellant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.