Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/416/2016

Varinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Taruna Bhardwaj Adv.

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	416 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	14.6.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	3.3.2017

 

 

 

 

 

 Varinder Singh s/o Baldev Singh r/o H. NO.173, Village  Chawa, VPO Pull Tibri Kanti, Near Punjab National Bank, District Gurdaspur.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. Branch Office at SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
2. Global Strategic Business Consultancy SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
3. Worldwide immigration consultancy services Ltd. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Mohali through its authorized signatory (Head Office).

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Ms. Taruna Bhardwaj, Adv.      

 

For OPs                 :     Sh. Raman Walia, Adv.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant availed services of the OPs for immigration to Canada and paid a sum of Rs.84,270/- to the OPs apart from paying US$1200. Thereafter the complainant as per requirement of the OPs submitted all the documents with them for processing his case. Subsequently, the complainant visited the office of the OPs a number of times to know about the status of his case. Ultimately, on 9.4.2015 the complainant was astonished to know that his case has been returned back from Canada due to capping.  The complainant approached the OPs and sent numerous correspondence to them.  The OPs eventually agreed to re-submit the case of the complainant but demanded extra fee.  The complainant intimated the OPs that he is ready for the re-submission of his case but he would not pay extra fee. When left with no other alternative the complainant vide email dated 26.9.2015 asked for getting refund of his amount. The complainant also sent legal notice to the OPs but nothing was done by the OPs.  Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed.

  

2.     OPs in their joint reply stated that due services were provided to the complainant after receiving documents from him. His case was sent to World Education Services for getting Educational Credential Assessment  done on behalf of the complainant in Federal Skilled Worker Program vide letter dated 23.7.2014. Subsequently, the Educational Credential result of the complainant dated 12.8.2014 was received by OPs company which was further intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 23.8.2014. It is asserted that the case of the complainant was to be further filed with Citizenship and Immigration, Canada and accordingly an email dated 15.9.2014 was sent to the complainant to submit the remaining documents for filing the immigration case on behalf of the complainant. Only after receiving pending documents the case of the complainant was duly filed with Citizenship and Immigration Canada under Federal Skilled Worker Programe vide letter dated 30.9.2014. It is pleaded that due to global capping the immigration authority of Canada did not process the case of the complainant under Federal Skilled Worker Program  and accordingly VISA  processing fee paid by the complainant was returned to him vide email dated 31.3.2015.  Even,  the complainant was given option to get his case re-assessed  under new Express Entry Program  for permanent residency as per the Canadian Immigration laws prevalent at that time as per letter dated 4.2.2015 but the complainant did not avail the offer. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.2 made in the reply.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.
6.     The complainant vide this complaint disputed that the OPs failed to provide due services to the complainant as they delayed in filing the case of the complainant which faced rejection from the authorities concerned.  It is also the grouse of the complainant that when the OPs were approached for the refund of the amount paid by the complainant, he was refused for the same hence this complaint has been filed.
7.     On the contrary the OPs claimed that due services were provided to the complainant after receiving documents from him. His case was sent to World Education Services for getting Educational Credential Assessment  done on behalf of the complainant in Federal Skilled Worker Program vide letter dated 23.7.2014 (Annexure R-3)   The Educational Credential result of the complainant dated 12.8.2014 was received by OP company which was further intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 23.8.2014. Further claimed that the case of the complainant was to be further filed with ‘Citizenship and Immigration, Canada’ and accordingly an email dated 15.9.2014 was sent to the complainant to submit the pending documents for filing the immigration case on behalf of the complainant. Further claimed that only after receiving pending documents the case of the complainant was duly filed with Citizenship and Immigration Canada under Federal Skilled Worker Program vide letter dated 30.9.2014 (Annexure R-8). Further due to global capping the immigration authority of Canada did not process the case of the complainant under Federal Skilled Worker Program  and accordingly VISA  processing fee paid by the complainant was returned to him vide email dated 31.3.2015.  Claimed further that the complainant was given option to get his case re-assessed  under new Express Entry Program  for permanent residency as per the Canadian Immigration laws prevalent at that time as per letter dated 4.2.2015. But the complainant opted to rescind the contract and as such the OPs are not liable for any deficiency in service.
8.     From the perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs failed on their part to provide the due professional services to the complainant for which he paid an amount of Rs.84,270/- as is evident from Annexure C-1. Admittedly, the services of OPs were retained for receiving professional services with respect to preparation, submission and processing of immigration case on behalf of the complainant and his dependent family members under skilled worker
   category. But the record  in the shape of email correspondences exchanged between the parties reveals untimely action of the OPs resulted in delay of filing the case of the complainant.

     As it is admitted and evident on record that the OPs initially get the educational assessment done and after receiving the result they asked the complainant to submit certain documents necessary for filing the case of the complainant  for immigration under   skilled worker category. We are of the concerted view that the requirement of documents should have been made known to the complainant at the earliest i.e. at the time when he retained the services of the OPs for the particular purpose and supplied the documents for the same. Any discrepancy or the shortfall in the documents for processing the case should have been pointed out at the earliest and it is due to the deficient services the complainant was not apprised to arrange for the documents which later on the OPs asked from the complainant. The record further reveals that a sufficient period was exhausted in arranging the documents as claimed by the OPs which apparently caused delay in filing of the case of the complainant, which resulted into rejection of the case of the complainant for which the OPs are solely responsible. This observation leads to the conclusion that the OPs failed to provide due services to the complainant and are wrong in retaining the hard earned money of the complainant, which was paid to the OPs for hiring professional services of the OPs.    

The OPs also took a very contradictory stand in their reply in regard to the assertion of the complainant that he duly intimated the OPs that he is ready to re-submit his case  vide email 14.9.2015 Annexure C-13 but refused to pay the extra charges for re-submitting the case. The OPs in their reply under the head of preliminary objection claimed that they duly conveyed to the complainant that the professional fee deposited by him under Federal skilled category could have been adjusted with regard to the immigration application to be filed on behalf of the complainant under New Express Entry Program, however, the complainant became restless and abandoned the contract of  engagement by sending application claiming refund for which he is not entitled as per terms of contract. In contrary to the  above submission, made in the preliminary objection the OPs under heading ‘on merit’ in para 14 stated that the OPs company  has always been ready and willing to re-file/resubmit the immigration case on behalf of the complainant provided that the complainant cooperates and furnishes his complete documents for filing his immigration case and pay the professional fee for the same. The contradictory stand of the OPs further discloses unfair  practice adopted by them.

9.     Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the OPs got the qualification of the complainant assessed, (valid for a particular period of time) the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount spent for getting the assessment done. But certainly the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid to the OPs for providing services for which they  are found to be deficient in providing the same as observed in the preceding paras.  We hold that the  complainant is entitled for amount paid by him to the OPs for retaining their service i.e. Rs.84,270/- minus the actual expenditure incurred by the OPs for getting the qualification assessment done;  in addition to consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses. The complaint is allowed accordingly awarding the amount aforesaid.  
10.     The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.25000/- to the complainant.

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

Announced

3.3.2017    

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                        Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

                                                                        Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER