Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/83/2016

Sukhpreet Kaur Maan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	83 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	03.02.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	23.09.2016

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Sukhpreet Kaur Mann wife of Sh.Mandeep Singh, resident of House NO.115-B, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Mandeep Singh son of Sh.Major Singh, resident of House No.115-B, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

 

            Complainants

Versus

 

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., through its authorised officer/Managing Director, SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

   

 Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: None for the complainants

Sh.Raman Walia, Counsel for Opposite Party

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant Sukhpreet Kaur Maan, having educational qualification of M.Tech (Computer Science and Engineering), Assistant Professor at Shri Guru Grant Sahib World University, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, visited the Opposite Party, in response to its advertisement, for immigration as Permanent Residency.  It is averred that the Opposite Party after checking her documents assured that it would get her appointed as University Lecturer at Australia. Then an agreement/contract was entered into between them dated 2.9.2014 and the complainants made payment of Rs.67,416/-. It is also averred that the Opposite Party for getting her documents assessed from Australian Authorities, charged 710 dollars (Australian Dollar) and in lieu of that, the documents of the complainants were allegedly got assessed from authorities of Australia. It is further averred that the Opposite Party stated that after assessment from Australian Authorities she was found eligible for the post of Lecturers in Australian Universities.  It is submitted that however, the Opposite Party stressed that it will inform regards the further course of action to the complainants only when they enter into a new agreement.  It is also submitted that having no option, the complainants entered into a new agreement and the same was entered on 22.1.2015 and deposited the amount of Rs.67,416/- + Rs.19,835/- in the account of the Opposite Party (Ann.C-2).  However, thereafter, the Opposite Party kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other despite the fact that the Opposite Party promised that the complainants would get definite PR and also would get the job under University Lecturer and also kept on giving false assurance that the occupation of the complainants and Indian Technocrats of the profession of complainants are in great demand.  It is pleaded that the correspondence with the Opposite Party through e-mails is continued since the beginning and copies of the same are annexed as Ann.C-6 (Colly.). Thereafter, when the complainants demanded refund of the amount paid, the Opposite Party refused and offered Rs.30,000/- only which was not acceptable to the complainants. The complainants again sent an e-mail dated 16.12.2015 to the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating therein that the complainant was assessed as per the information given by her in the Assessment Form (Ann.R-1) and accordingly a ‘Contract of Engagement’ dated 2.9.2014 (Ann.R-2) was entered into between the parties, to which both parties were bound.  It is stated that the complainants had made payment of an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the Opposite Party Company towards professional fee of the company, which is totally non-refundable as per Contract of Engagement and an amount of Rs.7416/- was also paid by the complainants as Service Tax, Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess (Ann.C-1), which is also non-refundable.  It is also stated that the complainants paid an amount of AUD$710 as assessment fee to the Skill Assessment Body i.e. Vetassess vide receipt dated 28.10.2014 (Ann.R-3) and the said amount cannot be claimed from the Opposite Party and the same is totally non-refundable as per the Contract of Engagement (Ann.R-2).  It is asserted that the Opposite Party duly performed its part of the duty and submitted the complete case of the complainant for Skill Assessment with the Australian Authorities i.e. Vestasses (Ann.R-4) and thereafter vide Result dated 8.1.2015 (Ann.R-5), the Skill Assessment result of the complainant for nominated occupation of University Lecturer was declared as positive.  Claimed that the Opposite Party Company after receiving the positive Skill Assessment from the respective Assessing Authority, had duly informed to the complainant vide e-mail dated 12.1.2015    (Ann.R-6).  Thereafter, the complainant entered into a second separate Contract of Engagement for STN- State Territory Nominated Independent, Australia, on 22.1.2015 for receiving professional services as regards preparation, submission and processing of Immigration case of the complainant for Australia (Ann.R-7) and as per the said contract, the complainant made payment of Rs.60,000/- on account of professional fee payable to the Opposite Party and an amount of Rs.7416/- was paid by the complainant as Service Tax, Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess (Ann.R-8), which is totally non-refundable as per Clause 11 of the Contract of Engagement (Ann.R-7).  Moreover, the complainant had also entered into a separate Contract of Engagement with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai (GSBC) (Ann.R-9) for receiving professional services and has paid an amount of US $300 to it, which is a separate legal entity.  It is pleaded that the Opposite Party Company was always ready and willing to provide professional services as per the Contact of Engagement (Ann.R-7), but the complainant became restless and abandoned the Contract by sending an e-mail dated 10.10.2015 (Ann.R-10) for refund by herself stating that the Opposite Party has well performed their part.  It is also pleaded that Opposite Party Company has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the Contract, however, it is only due to the non-cooperation of the complainant, that her immigration case could not be processed any further.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply of the OPs.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       As none appeared on behalf of the complainants on the date fixed for arguments i.e. 16.09.2016, we therefore, proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in absence of the complainants.  We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The matter is settled to the extent that the complainant No.1 [M.Tech (Computer Science & Engineering)] being enticed by the advertisement floated by the Opposite Party for immigration to Australia as Permanent Residency approached the Opposite Party. Further in order to achieve the said goal, the complainant No.1 entered into an agreement/contract with Opposite Party on 2.9.2014 and paid an amount of Rs.67,416/- and 710 Australian dollars.  It is also a matter of record as well as proved that the services availed from the Opposite Party for skill assessment of the complainant were perfectly performed by the Opposite Party.  As a result, the complainant was informed that her skill assessment has been assessed as positive by the Australian Authorities i.e. Vetassess.

 

7]       It is only due to the second contract entered into by the complainant with the Opposite Party i.e. Ann.R-7 on 22.1.2015 that the matter become complex and disputed.  It is the grouse of the complainant that despite being successfully assessed as positive under the skill assessment by the Australian Authorities i.e. Vetassess, the Opposite Party forced the complainant to enter into another agreement on 22.1.2015 for which further an amount of Rs.67,416/- + Rs.19,835/- was charged by the Opposite Party for processing the immigration case of the complainant with assurance that the complainant No.1 would get the job under University Lecturer in Australia.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the Opposite Party despite of second agreement, duly entered into and duly paid for the contractual services, vide e-mail dated 8.7.2015 (Ann.C-4) wrongly informed that the complainant had availed only the skill assessment services of the Opposite Party and was further told to upgrade services from ASA to STM-State Territory Nominated Independent for further processing.  It is also disputed by the complainant No.1 that after being successfully assessed positive under Skill Assessment by the Australian Authorities i.e. Vetassess, the Opposite Party failed to process her case for further employment as University Lecturer in Australia for a longer duration and also failed to process her case with Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Northern Territory (Both States of Australia) despite being specifically asked for by the complainants.  Further disputed that the efforts made by the Opposite Party for Lecturer Post in North South Wales for complainant NO.1 were a futile exercise and just an eye-wash as there was no requirement from the New South Wales State (NSW) for the Lecturer Post and her claim has wrongly been processed by the Opposite Party with New South Wales States.

 

8]       The counsel for the Opposite Party, denying any deficiency in service, claimed that the Opposite Party has always been ready and willing to perform it part of the contract and it is only due to the non-cooperation of the complainant that her case for immigration could not be processed any further.

 

9]       During the course of arguments, the counsel for the Opposite Party in an alternate offered to refund the second fee charged while entering into another agreement dated 22.1.2015 i.e. Rs.67,416/- as well as Rs.19,835/- (equivalent to 300 US Dollars), paid by the complainant in favour M/s GSBC (Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai).

 

10]      A thorough perusal of the record reveals that so far as the services, qua first contract entered into between the parties on 2.9.2014 is concerned, it had been properly rendered by the Opposite Party, but record is also sufficient to prove that contractual liability undertaken by the Opposite Party under the second contract entered into between both the parties has not been fulfilled by the Opposite Party as it pursued the matter of the complainant with casual approach and no technical assistance and expert services, as were required on its part, were rendered to the complainants. 

 

11]      Claim of the Opposite Party that due to non-cooperation of the Opposite Party, her case for immigration could not be processed, is a bundle of lies as there is no cogent & convincing evidence on record to prove that averment.  The submission of the Opposite Party that complainant separately entered into the contract with M/s GSBC (Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai), is also a sheer lie to create a distorted view of a clear picture.  The bare perusal of the second contract entered into between the parties (Ann.R-7) and the contract entered into between the complainant No.1 with M/S (Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai) (Ann.C-2) together shows that both contracts are part of same transaction.

 

12]      In our opinion, as the Opposite Party has failed to render proper services and as well as taking into consideration the offer of refund made by the ld.Counsel for the Opposite Party, discussed in foregoing paras, we deem it proper to order the refund of fee charged by Opposite Party from the complainant No.1 while entering into second agreement on 22.1.2015 i.e. Rs.67,416/- plus Rs.19,835/-. Further, in our view, the complainant No.1 is also entitled for good amount of compensation for the harassment suffered at the hands of the Opposite Party for rendering deficient services, which we quantified to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

        

13]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of the OP is proved.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OP and the Opposite Party is directed as under:-

[a] To refund Rs.67,416/- + Rs.19,835/- (total Rs.87,251/-) to the complainant No.1;

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.2,5000/- as compensation to the complainant No.1 for the mental & physical harassment suffered on account of deficiency in service rendered by the OP;

[c] To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant No.1. 

         This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, as at sub-para [a] & [b] above, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of this order till realization, apart from paying the litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

23^rd September, 2016                                                                    Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Om