Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/313/2017

Yadav Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Worldwide Immigration Consultant Services Ltd (WWICS Ltd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Goel

26 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/313/2017
Date of Institution	:	12/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	26/02/2018

 

 

Yadav Goyal age about 31 years s/o Lt. Sh. Avtar Krishan Goyal r/o House No.4589/2, Poojan Street, Near Dal Dalian Chowk, Patiala.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Worldwide Immigration Consultant Services Limited (WWICS Ltd.), Head Office A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali, through its Managing Director.

2.     Worldwide Immigration Consultant Services Limited (WWICS Ltd.), A-31/A, 3^rd Floor, Near Raja Garden Flyover, Above Yamaha Showroom, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi through its Authorised Representative.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vishal Goel, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant approached the OPs at Chandigarh Branch regarding permanent immigration to Australia and on their assurance paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- on 16.12.2014 as retainer fee and signed the contract of engagement.  The complainant provided all the documents to the OPs and further paid an amount of Rs.11,798/- on 16.12.2014. In April 2015, one more contract of engagement was got signed and on the asking of the OPs, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.67,416/- on 20.4.2015. Afterwards, on the asking of the OPs, the complainant also deposited US dollars 500 on 20.4.2015 in favour of Global Strategic Business Consultancy.  Despite complying with the requirements of the OPs, no positive response was received by the complainant, therefore, he sought refund. However, the OPs approved refund of Rs.18,000/- only which was refused by the complainant and he sought full refund. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written reply have not disputed the factual matrix. The receipt of Rs.55,000/- towards professional fee and Rs.6,797/- toward service, which were non-refundable, have been admitted.  It has been averred that the earlier contract of engagement dated 16.12.2014 was signed by the complainant with respect to preparation, submission and processing of his Immigration case for getting his Skill Assessment done from the respective assessing authority in Australia and the same was duly got done vide Annexure R-5 and as such the OP duly performed its part of contract. Accordingly, the complainant again entered into a separate contract of engagement dated 20.4.2015 with the OPs for grant of Permanent Resident Visa to Australia and as per clause 3 of the same, he paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards professional fee and Rs.7,416/- towards service tax, which were non-refundable. The amount of US $300 (after discount of US$ 200) was given by the complainant to M/s GSBC Dubai which was also totally non-refundable.  It has been contended that the OPs have duly performed their duties by getting skill assessment done on behalf of the complainant from the respective assessing authority in Australia and further preparing and processing his immigration case in nominated occupation list which was to open/release by Australian Immigration Authorities, however, the complainant himself chose not to wait and abandoned the contract by withdrawing his immigration case and made refund application.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         In the present case, the first contract of engagement was signed by the complainant with the OPs on 16.12.2014 and accordingly the amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,798/- was paid to the OPs.  Again in the month of April, one more agreement was signed between the parties and on 20.4.2015 the complainant paid further amount of Rs.67,416/- for the purpose of immigration. Furthermore, after a month on 20.5.2015 the complainant again paid US $ 500 to one Global Strategic Business Consultancy (GSBC) through the OPs. The sole grouse of the complainant is that after paying such a huge amount when no fruitful result was obtained, he requested the OPs for the refund in the month of April 2016 and thereafter the OPs approved the refund to the complainant to the tune of Rs.18,000/- only which was refused by him. 
7.         The stand taken by the OPs is that as per the complainant, the amount paid to Global Strategic Business Consultancy was not US $ 500 but US $ 300 and the fee charged was non-refundable.  The contract of agreement was signed by the complainant hence they rightly offered the refund of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant.
8.         A perusal of Contract of Engagement (Annexure C-1) under clause 1 mentions the duties of the company as under :-

“1.    Duties of the Company :

In consultation with its associates at various locations the company shall provide the following services to its clients :

a)     Assess the client according to the information provided by the client in his assessment form.

b)     Assist the client in preparation of his/her case for Skill Assessment;

c)      Review and identify submission of required documents and supporting evidences;

d)     Submit the complete case with supporting documentation and evidence along with the submission report to the respective Skill Assessment Body on the receipt of all requisite documents from the client.

e)     Handle all correspondence with the respective Skill Assessment Body pertaining to client’s case;

f)      Intimate the requirements sent by Skill Assessment Body during the progress of the case.

g)     Assist the client in keeping his/her file up to date.

h)     Advise the client about any subsequent changes in the Skill Assessment process and policies and any subsequent conditions applicable to meet the selection criteria.”

Further, clause 16 of the said contract reads as under :-

                “16.  Support to the Client :

                The Client would be provided with specialized services by a team of professionals having vast experience and exposure in their relevant fields.”

9.         A perusal of the agreement reveals that the OPs time and again charged hefty amounts from the complainant. The complainant was even forced to get into agreement with one Global Strategic Business Consultancy – an unknown party - and was made to pay US dollars to it.  Undoubtedly, the complainant hired the services of the OPs for processing his case to settle abroad, but, it is also a matter of fact that despite waiting for a long period of 2 years, he had to face failure of his attempt despite getting good score for IELTS i.e. 6.5 band.  We feel that no one can assume the pain of a person who, despite spending a huge amount time and again as per the wishes of the OPs, had to face failure of his attempt after waiting for a long period.  Ultimately after inflicting such a grave harassment to the complainant, the OPs approved the refund of Rs.18,000/- only, out of the total money paid by him, without explaining the reason and extent of deductions made by them at their own.  Hence the act of the OPs in retaining the money of the complainant till date and then giving approval for refund of a meagre amount of Rs.18,000/- only  amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which forced him to indulge into the present unnecessary litigation.  We feel that since the OPs retained and utilized the amount of the complainant for a long period, at least a reasonable part of total fee must be refunded by them after deducting 10% as processing fee.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the amount deposited by the complainant after making deduction of 10% from the same.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
26/02/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member