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

========

Complaint  Case No  : 684 of 2009

Date of Institution :  15.05.2009

Date of  Decision   :  08.04.2010

Ranbir Singh Bhatia son of Shri H.S. Bhatia, Resident of H.No. 14, Vidya Nagar, Gobindpuri Road, Yamuna Nagar.

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Head Office: SCO No. 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Director.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

          SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI       MEMBER

          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

PRESENT: Complainant in person.

         Sh. Raman Walia, Adv. for OP.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, with a dream to immigrate to Canada, the Complainant approached the OP, which assessed his case and found him fit for permanent residency to Canada. The Complainant was told to clear the ILETS Test also. It was averred that an agreement was entered into between the Complainant and the OP on 17.11.2002 and the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as fee. Besides this, the Complainant also submitted his application, supported by the requisite documents, along with three demand drafts to the tune of Rs.37,500/- as immigration fee in favour of Canadian High Commission, payable at New Delhi.  It was alleged that without properly verifying the document, the OP forwarded the case to the Canadian High Commission for immigration on 10.7.2003. Thereafter, on 10.9.2003, the OP demanded the 1^st installment of their professional fee ($700) for releasing the file number which they received from Canadian High Commission. The Complainant paid this amount by demand draft in favour of Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation as per advice of the OP on 7.10.2003 to the OP. On 25.3.2008, the OP sent the list of documents, which the High Commission of Canada had required for processing the case of the Complainant for the purpose of immigration, which the Complainant sent in May, 2008 to the OP. In February, 2009, the Complainant was informed by the OP to send Rs.6100/- as the processing fee for the younger son of the Complainant, as required by the Canadian High Commission on 6.2.2009, which amount was sent by the Complainant vide demand draft to the OP. Surprisingly, on 1.5.2009, the Complainant received a letter dated 25.4.2009 from the OP along with a letter from Canadian High Commission informing him about the rejection of his case for immigration to Canada as his experience did not match with the National Occupational Classification matrix. It was alleged that the said letter had been issued by the Canadian High Commission on 16.1.2009; whereas, the OP informed about this to the Complainant on 1.5.2009 i.e. after a long delay of almost 04 months and during this period, the OP also demanded immigration processing fee for the younger son of the Complainant on 6.2.2009, which they had no business to receive, if his case had already been rejected on 16.1.2009. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a)  To direct the OP to refund the retainee fee of Rs.25,000/- plus professional fee ($700), as they failed to provide professional services to the Complainant, along with embassy fee of Rs.43,600/-, along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund.

b)  To direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for their deficient and negligent services.

c)  To direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OP in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that Complainant had entered into a Contract of Engagement with the OP with regard to the preparation and submission of his immigration case for Canada and accordingly, as per the said contract, the OP had already submitted his immigration case for Canadian Permanent Visa and receipt with regard to the receiving of the said Immigration Application was sent by the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi, vide their letter dated 30.7.2003, thus the OP had already performed its duties as per the said Contract of Engagement and there was no deficiency of service, which could be attributed to the OP. The Complainant was to pay to the OP, an amount of Rs.30,000/- as Professional Fee, however, he paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- only. Further, he opted for spot payment and instead of US $1500, paid 700 US$ to M/s GSBC, which has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint. While admitting the payment of Rs.37,500/- as Visa Processing Fee, it was stated that the same was non-refundable as per Clause (5) of the Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-1). Since the Visa Processing Fee of the second son (newly born) of the Complainant was not paid at the time of filing of the immigration case in 2003, accordingly, he had been informed with regard to the said deficiency, upon which he sent a draft dated 6.2.2009 for an amount of Rs.6100/- in favour of Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. It was alleged that the rejection letter dated 16.1.2009 was received on 16.3.2009 (Annexure R-13) and after analyzing the reasons for rejection of the case, the Complainant was informed about the decision taken by the Visa Officer of the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 25.4.2009. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OP. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the Complainant and OP. As a result of the detailed analysis of the case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having approached the OP for his immigration to Canada after assessing his case and for that purpose, he paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as fee and also submitted his application, along with requisite documents, as also an amount of Canadian $700 (Rs.37,500/- as immigration [Visa] Fee in favour of Canadian High Commission, payable at New Delhi and that his case was sent to the Canadian High Commission by OP on 10.7.2003, have all been admitted. The Complainant also paid another sum of Rs.6,100/- as processing fee for his younger son on 6.2.2009. Finally, on 1.5.2009, the Complainant received a letter dated 25.4.2009 from the OP, along with a letter from the Canadian High Commission dated 16.1.2009, informing him about the rejection of his case for immigration to Canada, as his experience did not match with the National Occupational Classification Matrix. While rejecting the immigration case of the Complainant, Govt. of Canada, High Commission of Canada, in their letter dated 16.1.2009 (Annexure r-14) has given the following reasons for the rejection of his case:-

“I have now completed the assessment of your application for a permanent resident visa as a skilled worker. I have determined that you do not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.

Sub-section 72(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states that a foreign national is a skilled worker if:

[a] within ten years preceding the date of their application for a permanent resident visa, they have at least one year of continuous full-time employment (37.5 hours/ week) experience, or the equivalent in continuous part-time employment in one or more occupations, other than a restricted occupation, that are listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Levels A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix.

[b] during that period of employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification; and

[c] during that period of employment they performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of         the National Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties.

I am not satisfied that you meet the second or third part of these requirements because your employment reference letters are very brief and do not provide sufficient information to satisfy me that you meet the minimum requirements of R75. Based on the employment reference letters provided, I am not satisfied you have performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupations of Technical Sales Specialists NOC 6221 or Sales Manager NOC 0611 as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification or that you have performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation of Sales Manager NOC 0611 as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties.

Sub-section 75(3) states that if a foreign national fails to meet these requirements, the application shall be refused and no further assessment is required. I am not satisfied that you meet these requirements.” 

ii] The only dispute between the parties i.e. the Complainant and the OP is that as per the Complainant, in accordance with the Agreement dated 17.11.2002, signed between the parties, the duties of the OP in respect of providing services to the Complainant were as under:-

         “1. Duties of the Company:

         In consultation with Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation, UAE and its affiliate Companies, WWICS Canada Inc., Global Placement Services, Canada and CICST the Company shall provide the following services:-

a) Assess the Client’s education (academic and professional), Professional Skills/ training and experience for permanent residence in Canada and advise the client about Canadian Immigration laws.

b) Assist the client in preparation of his/ her case for Canadian Immigration.

c) Review and identify for submission all required documents and supporting evidence.

d) Submit the complete case with supporting documentation and evidence along with the submission report to the processing visa office.”

iii]   The allegation of the Complainant against the OP is that the OP failed to properly assess his application for immigration to Canada; whereas, he had paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the OP thinking all along that they were experts in properly assessing, analyzing and judging his qualifications and relevant experience to immigrate to Canada. As per the Complainant, the OP just simply forwarded the papers as submitted by him to the Canadian Embassy, without ever making a proper assessment in respect of the educational and academic qualifications, professional skills, training and experience for a permanent residence in Canada and also did not advise him about the Canadian Immigration Law. During the course of arguments, the Complainant clearly stated that he had fulfilled all the requirements, as advised by the OP and submitted the required documents, including his experience certificate to the OP and it was for the OP to advise him as to whether the experience certificate submitted by him was matching with the requirements of the Canadian Embassy or not. The Complainant says that it was only through the letter which he received on 1.5.2009 after a long delay of 04 months that he came to know that the Canadian Embassy had raised the objection saying that he did not meet the 2^nd or 3^rd part of the said requirements, because his employment reference letters were very brief and did not provide sufficient information to satisfy them that he meets the minimum requirements of R75. These kind of things could have easily pointed out by the OP, but were never intimated by the OP. He further says that he not only submitted all the documents required for immigration, but also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as initial fee, in addition to Rs.37,500/-, as Visa Processing Fee and another Rs.6,100/- as Processing Fee for his younger son. As per the Complainant, he was entirely kept in the dark all through by the OP for a period of about 06 years and finally, the only thing the OP did was to convey to him, the rejection letter by the Canadian Embassy, which he calls as gross deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of OP and for which, he has prayed for compensation.  

iv]    In its written statement/ reply, as also during the oral submissions, the entire focus of the OP to defend its case has been that as per the contract of engagement, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The OP further says that the Complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as their Professional Fee; whereas he paid only Rs.25,000/- and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- remains unpaid as yet. It further says that the amount of Rs.37,500/- was paid to M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation [GSBC], who is an associate of the OP, but who has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint. But it is quite clear that M/s GSBC, as admitted by the OP itself, is their associate and the Complainant was not dealing with GSBC directly, but only through the OP. Therefore, the Complainant was not required to implead the said M/s GSBC as a party in the present complaint. The second contention of the OP is that the Visa Processing Fee of Rs.37,500/- was paid to the Canadian Embassy and the same was non-refundable as per Clause 5 of the Contract of Engagement. The OP says that it has duly assessed and processed the immigration case of the Complainant and had done its duty sincerely and diligently, but it is entirely the power and discretion of the Canadian Embassy to reject or accept any visa application and that they have no role to play in the grant of Visa to any person. Keeping all this in view, the OP has pleaded that there is no deficiency in service or indulgence in unfair trade practice on its part.   

6]      After a detailed analysis and in-depth study of the entire case, it is quite clear that the Complainant had all through placed complete reliance on the expertise of the OP and cooperated with them fully, by paying the initial fee, the visa fee and also an additional fee of Rs.6,100/-. As and when the OP demanded any document or an amount, the same was complied with by the Complainant. It is also clear that the visa papers for immigration to Canada in the case of the Complainant remained pending for about 06 years and there is document or paper on record, which shows that the OP had ever monitored his case or found any deficiency in the papers submitted by him at any stage during this period. The OP itself claims that they are great experts in assessing the application of the persons, seeking immigration to Canada. It is a matter of common sense that since the Complainant had submitted all the papers, especially certificates in respect of his educational qualifications and work experience as a skilled professional in the Sales Professional Occupation and if the OP had initially applied its mind and analyzed the experience certificates vis-à-vis the rules of the Canadian Embassy, they could have easily found out the mismatching between the experience possessed by the Complainant and that required by the Canadian Embassy. The discrepancy and mismatching between the two could have been easily pointed out by the OP itself right in the beginning, instead of sending all the papers to Embassy which were rejected by them. It is also obvious that even after charging a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the Complainant, the contribution of the OP in handling, assessing and monitoring the immigration case of the Complainant is virtually ‘Nil’ and further, they refused to refund even the amount paid by the Complainant to them.

7]      Keeping in view the fact that the OP, in our opinion, has just worked as a “Post Office” in receiving and forwarding all the documents, as submitted by the Complainant to the Canadian Embassy, without ever assessing, analyzing and pointing out the discrepancies, if any, using its alleged expertise in immigration cases. In our considered opinion, there is deficiency in service and also indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of the OP in not refunding the amount paid by the Complainant, as it did not render any notable service to the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is very solid and it has a lot of weight, merit and substance. Therefore, it deserves acceptance. We, therefore, decide the present complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OP.

8]      We direct the OP to make the following payments to the Complainant:-

(i)    To refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- paid by the Complainant as initial fee;

(ii) To pay back a sum of Rs.43,600/- (Rs.37,500/- + Rs.6,100/-), which the Complainant had paid as Professional Fee for obtaining the Visa to Canada at the instance of OP.

(iii)     To pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental pain and agony to the Complainant for a long period of 06 years, without his achieving any positive result and finally, leading to the rejection of his application for Visa/for immigration to Canada.

(iv) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

9]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of 06 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall pay the said amount of Rs.88,600/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of rejection of the visa application by the Canadian High Commission i.e. 16.1.2009, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation as Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

10]    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08.04.2010                                       Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                             Sd/-   

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                             Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’