DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.202 of 2017

                                             Date of institution:  16.03.2017                                             Date of decision   :  21.12.2018

Ravinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh, resident of village Theh Gulam Nabi, Post Office, Nausherra Majha Singh, Gurdaspur, Punjab 143518.

…….Complainant

Versus

M/s. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, India through its Proprietor.

……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Shri K.S. Rupal, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                 Complainant was willing to settle in Canada, for which he approached OP in respect of application for City of Morden Manitoba. OP called upon complainant to pay 16500 Canadian Dollars  as charges for completion of whole job and complainant agreed for the same, on which he deposited amount of Rs.2,35,956/- by way of issue of cheque dated 04.08.2014 drawn at State Bank of Patiala, Bangowani Kunjar Branch, Gurdaspur in favour of OP. Mr. Arjun Kumar, Assistant Manager of OP and Mr. Satpal Singh, Branch Manager of OP disclosed complainant that they after encashment of cheque will get the amount converted in Canadian Dollars and whole process will be completed within period of 15 to 18 months. Relevant documents were submitted with cheque and thereafter receipt dated 04.08.2014 was issued. Contract of Engagement was executed on 04.08.2014 itself and thereafter complainant remained in touch with OP for knowing about progress of work. Complainant was disclosed about case No.83014 for checking up progress of his case, but when complainant did show this number to the person dealing with his case, then he was shocked to know that said case number is not genuine one. This case number was generated by OP. On contact to OP, no suitable reply was received even though message through mobile was sent to OP, which was duly attended by Mr. Arjun Kumar, Assistant Manager of OP. On 16.09.2016, complainant asked about progress of case through e-mail and thereafter he met Mr. Arjun Kumar personally, but he (complainant) was asked to wait for another 10/15 days. On non receipt of any reply from OP, complainant contacted OP for finding that Mr. Arjun Kumar has been transferred to Muscat Office of OP. Another e-mail at different address was sent to Baljit Kaur, an employee of OP and in response to the same, reply was received as if case of complainant was rejected on 07.01.2016. However, this fact was not disclosed to complainant until sending of email by him on 03.03.2017. Complainant called upon OP to disclose the reason for which his case has been rejected, but no reply received and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of paid amount of Rs.2,35,956/- alongwith compensation amount of Rs.4,50,000/-.

2.             OP filed reply for claiming inter alia as if complaint not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on part of OP and as per Clause 9 (3) of Contract of Engagement an amount of Rs.60,000/-, the processing fee is totally non refundable. Out of refundable amount of Rs.1,80,000/- an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is being paid to complainant and as such prayer made for dismissal of complaint. Present is a case of non choosing of application of complainant by Immigration Coordinator, City of Morden, Manitoba, Canada for interview. As such due services alleged to be rendered by OP to complainant. Large number of applications were received by Canadian Embassy and that was reason of rejection. Admittedly complainant availed services of OP on 04.08.2014 by entering into two contracts of Agreements of that date. Case of complainant was prepared in the best possible manner by OP and the same was presented before concerned authorities on 10.12.2014. Application of complainant by Immigration Coordinator of City of Morden, Manitoba Canada was received vide email dated 11.12.2014. It was informed to complainant that response will be received from authorities on or before 02.01.2015, but authorities of City of Morden Manitoba did not respond and that is why email dated 05.05.2015 was sent by OP for knowing about status of application of complainant. No response was received from MPNP authorities and that is why another email dated 20.08.2015 was sent for confirming about status of complainant’s case. Immigration Coordinator of MPNP authorities informed OP about receipt of large number of applications for the programme. It was further informed that in case there is no update on the application of complainant, then same be taken as not chosen for interview. Consequently, it was deemed that case of complainant was refused by Immigration Coordinator and complainant was informed about the same vide email dated 10.01.2016. Services of OP were retained by complainant for purpose of counseling and advising him about immigration category as well as procedure to be followed; providing counseling about immigration package and check list of documents; advising complainant in respect of preparation of documents and forms in proper format etc. Those services were duly rendered. Out of amount of Rs.2,02,248/-, an amount of Rs.22,248/- and further out of Rs.33,708/- an amount Rs.3,708/- paid as service tax. These amounts are totally non refundable because of their having gone into Govt. account. Details of service tax mentioned in the letter and as such it is claimed that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- to the OP. This Forum alleged to be having no jurisdiction because the matter liable to be referred to sole arbitration of arbitrator to be appointed by OP. Admittedly an amount of Rs.2,35,956/- was paid by complainant to OP, but it is claimed that an amount of Rs.25,956/- paid as service tax is totally non refundable. Admittedly complainant completed his forms in December 2014 and thereafter case of complainant was filed, but allegations of non providing of progress report denied. Admittedly complainant sent email dated 16.09.2016 to authorised official and thereafter complainant was informed about non choosing of his application. Sending of email dated 03.03.2017 by complainant to OP even is admitted, but with the observation that reply of the same had been sent by Ms. Baljit Kaur, an Executive in the office of OP. Through email dated 04.03.2017 complainant was informed about refusal by concerned authorities of his application. Complainant was provided with copy of email dated 07.01.2016 sent by MPNP authorities for disclosing reasons for non choosing of his application in terms that very large number of applications have been received due to which pick and choose method is adopted. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and thereafter closed evidence.  On the other hand counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv
Bajaj, authorised representative of OP as Ex.OP-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments in this case submitted by OP, but not by complainant. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Complainant received cheque of amount of Rs.1,20,000/- dated 20.04.2018, which as per his recorded statement dated 01.06.2018 has been got encashed by him. Thereafter another amount of Rs.1,15,956/- through cheque dated 05.12.2018 was returned to complainant qua receipt of which his statement dated 14.12.2018 was recorded. So virtually complainant has received total paid amount by him to OP. After receipt of cheque of amount of Rs.1,15,956/- dated 05.12.2018, complainant suffered statement that now dispute remains only regarding amount of compensation and litigation expenses and as such other  aspects of the matter need not be gone into. Complainant will be entitled to compensation for mental harassment and agony and to litigation expenses in case he is shown to have been dragged in unnecessary litigation.

6.             After going through written statement and affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Rajiv Bajaj authorised representative of OP itself, it is made out that intimation Ex.OP-1 on 07.01.2016 was received about receipt of large number of applications by Immigration Coordinator of MPNP and if nothing has been heard about application being chosen for interview, then it will be taken as if application is not chosen. Though this letter of 07.01.2016 received by OP, but there is nothing on record to suggest that copy of this intimation was conveyed to complainant at any point of time until filing of written statement in this case on 12.05.2017. So submission advanced by counsel for OP has no force that as after receipt of intimation Ex.OP-1, complainant was informed and as such there is no deficiency in service on part of OP. Receipt of Ex.OP-1 by complainant is not proved and nor any document produced to show dispatch of Ex.OP-1 to complainant and as such it is made out that though OP received intimation regarding implied rejection of application of complainant on 07.01.2016, but it did not inform complainant about this rejection immediately thereafter. Even if terms of agreements Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 may be providing for non refund of Rs.60,000/- and amount of service tax payable to Govt., despite that as full amount has been refunded to complainant and as such dispute regarding exact payable amount does not remain now. In view of refund of entire amount by OP to complainant, now OP estopped by its act and conduct from claiming that excess amount than actual receivable as per terms of agreement has been paid to complainant.

7.             Ex.OP-4 is letter sent by MPNP authorities to OP on 11.12.2014 for disclosing that application of complainant received by the said authority and review of same will take place on 02.01.2015. Through Ex.OP-4, MPNP authorities disclosed OP that response will be received regarding application of complainant on or before 02.01.2015. Through Ex.OP-5, MPNP authorities were asked by OP to disclose about status of application of complainant and further despite sending of repeated reminders, no response was received and that is why email Ex.OP-6 dated 20.08.2015 again was sent by OP to MPNP authorities. So certainly these documents establish that OP had been taking due steps for knowing status of application of complainant submitted with MPNP authorities. Deficiency in that respect on part of OP certainly is not there.

8.             After going through letter Ex.OP-7 of 10.01.2016, it is made out that OP informed complainant about decision of refusal of his application on 10.01.2016 and as such earlier submission loses its significance that intimation to complainant was not sent of refusal or rejection of his application. Virtually through letter Ex.OP-7, OP informed complainant about rejection of his application on 10.01.2016. Even after conveying of this rejection, refund of due amount has not been done, but same done for the first time by paying Rs.1,20,000/- on 07.02.2018 and as such certainly there remains delay of two years in reimbursement of amount payable by OP to complainant. That delay has remained unexplained and as such certainly submission advanced by complainant has force that he has been dragged in unnecessarily in litigation by OP.

10.            Copy of retainer fee receipt Ex.OP-8 and of email reply sent by Baljit Kaur to complainant on 03.03.2017 is produced on record as Ex.OP-9 alongwith email correspondence dated 04.03.2017 Ex.OP-10. So from the entire documentary evidence available on record, it is made out that in the first instance intimation regarding declining of application of complainant was given to complainant by OP on 10.01.2016, but despite that refund of amount made in part on 07.02.2018, but of the entire balance amount made only on 14.12.2018. For this delay in refund, certainly complainant was put in lot of mental tension and agony by OP resulting in his harassment and as such complainant entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount, more so when entire received amount by OP from complainant has been refunded, despite the fact that service tax amount and processing fee is non refundable. In view of refund of entire amount, lenient view is taken in matter of awarding amount of compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed by awarding compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) more.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on these amounts from today till payment. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.           

Announced

December 21, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member