Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/41

Arvind Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Worldwide Immigration - Opp.Party(s)

TPS Gill Adv.

20 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 41 of 12.01.2016

   Date of Decision       :   20.08.2018 

Arvind Kumar Sharma aged 41 years son of Sh. Om Parkash r/o #1731, St. No.12, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, (WWICS), Branch Manager/Incharge, Head Office, SCO-2415-16, Sector-22-C, Chandigarh.

2.Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, (WWICS), Branch Manager/Incharge, Branch Office, 2^nd Address:- 2^nd Floor, Noble Enclave Building, Opposite Hotel Park Plaza, Bhai Wala Chowk, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person with Sh.T.P.S.Gill, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh.G.S.Sandher, Advocate

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant after going through adds and promotions of Ops, visited office of OP2 with purpose of going abroad (Canada) along with his wife Smt.Anu Sharma and son Mr.Bhavesh Shounik on PR Visa basis. OP2 compelled complainant to pay Rs.25,000/- immediately, so as to avail the benefit of special scheme of saving Rs.10,000/-. Op2 called upon complainant to provide documents and other papers for that purpose, despite knowing that the way which they projected was not proper for going abroad. Complainant along with his family members  completed all the formalities of Ops. Complainant was ready to join IELTS classes and other coaching classes at different places. Fee for the IELTS classes and coaching classes were paid as per recommendations of Ops. Rs.25,000/- were paid to OP2 on 28.2.2005 vide receipt No.05/6391. After receipt of that amount, Op2 forced the complainant to sign the contract form of WWICS and Global Strategic Business Consultancy in back date. Ops assured the complainant for not worrying about his money. 300US$ were paid to Op2 by the complainant as per their invoices. Rs.19000/- through demand draft was paid to Canadian High Commission on 27.4.2005 and Rs.19,000/- on 9.5.2005 for getting file No.29476. OP2 asked complainant to pay Rs.20,000/- more, which was paid on 27.09.2005. Complainant was given option to choose one of the packages suggested by Ops. Every package had different fees structure i.e. 1200 US$, 1400 US$ and 1700 US$. Complainant opted for gold package on suggestion of Ops. As per that package, service of the company would include overseas professional assessments/endorsement, settlement and placement services. Complainant took this package by disclosing Ops as if he knew nothing about the same. Ops assured to provide the best services by claiming that complainant along with family will be settled abroad surely provided he joins their policy and avails services of Ops. As and when, fees used to be paid late, then   late fee charges was used to be collected by Ops.                                                      Fee of 300 US$ paid by complainant to Global Company liable to be returned as they have not provided any type of services. Canadian High Commission (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘CHC’) returned the Visa processing fee. Ops liable to return the charges received by them from the complainant along with fees of other company and even they are liable to return the fees of IELTS and coaching classes. Complainant approached Ops many times, but they kept on prolonging the matter on one pretext or other. Complainant claims to have suffered mental and physical harassment and even financial loss and compensation of Rs.2 lac for such harassment sought along with expenses of Rs.2 lac with interest @24% per annum till realization. Rs.6500/- paid for IELTS examination fee, but Rs.15000/- to Rs.20,000/- paid for preparation/coaching of IELTS and buying of different books, even liable to be retruned by Ops. Complainant spent Rs.20,000/- for preparation of documents by visiting different places like Sangrur, Delhi etc., and as such, refund of that amount also sought. It is claimed that CHC has refunded the fee of 999.32 US$ on 02.03.2014 to complainant. Despite request through letters/emails dated 31.05.2014 and reminders, refund has not been done and even complainant not made aware regarding the progress of the case.

2.                Ops filed joint written reply for claiming that case of complainant was terminated by CHC vide letter dated 24.05.2013, due to enactment of a new legislation called Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act on 29.06.2012. Complainant was informed about termination on 20.11.2013 through email and as such, complaint alleged to be barred by limitation because it should have been filed by 20.11.2015. This complaint however was filed on 12.01.2016. Present is a case of change in immigration rules by the Canadian Authorities after filing of the case of the complainant before CHC. Complainant retained services of Ops under Federal Skilled Worker category by executing the agreement of engagement dated 28.02.2005 by receiving professional services with respect to the preparation, submission and processing of the immigration case.                                         Amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid towards professional fee vide receipt dated 28.02.2005. After due preparation of case of complainant in best possible manner, the same was presented before CHC on 13.05.2005. Complainant was allotted file number by the Citizenship and Immigration Canadian authorities vide letter dated 7.6.2005. Thereafter, complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on 24.09.2005 towards the received file number from the concerned authorities. Ops have rendered all the due services as per entitlement of complainant for getting the case processed by CHC. However, in view of introduction of above referred new Act, termination of case took place because of operation of law. Application of complainant was received by CHC on 16.05.2005. Case of complainant was affected by new legislation and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Even as per the settled legal position, deficiency in service cannot be attributed to Ops because of termination of case of complainant on account of change in law by CHC. After retaining of services of Ops by the complainant, Ops started rendering services of counseling, and advising by providing the complainant with immigration package and                 check list of documents etc. Ops have performed their part of contract since beginning. Complainant was duly advised and guided about necessary preparation and filing of case. Present complaint is alleged to be bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties because M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, a separate entity, not impleaded as party, despite the fact that complainant entered into contract with that company also. Complainant has received all their services by paying amount of Rs.300 US$. That amount of Rs.300 US$ paid on 14.05.2005 admittedly. That M/s GSBC, Dubai though is a necessary party not impleaded. Complainant has not claimed refund of 300 US$ from Ops because the same has been paid to M/s GSBC. This Forum alleged to be having no jurisdiction in view of existence of Arbitration Clause in the contract dated 28.02.2005. No compulsion was put on complainant for availing services of Ops or of making of payment of Rs.25,000/- to Ops or of entering into contract or to pay any other amount. Complainant availed services of Ops with his free will by entering into contract. No assurance was given to the complainant regarding his or his family settlement in foreign country. Number of file was received from CHC vide letter dated 7.6.2005. Amount of 300 US$ cannot be claimed from M/s GSBC,Dubai and present Ops cannot be fastened with liability. Admittedly, the Visa fee of Rs.19,000/- each paid on 27.5.2005 and 9.5.2005 through demand drafts. This fee has been refunded by CHC to the complainant and as such, complainant cannot claim this amount from Ops. Complainant was required to take IELTS for showing his proficiency in English language and he was guided accordingly. Ops are not liable to pay or refund the fee of IELTS course or of coaching classes. Clearance of IELTS was the responsibility of complainant as per clause-2 (J) of the contract dated 28.02.2005. Case of the complainant has not been rejected, but returned due to change in immigration law. Other averments of complaint denied.

3.               Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and affidavit Ex.CX of his cousin brother Sh.Lalit Kumar Sharma along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C40 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj, Authorized representative of Ops along with documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/13 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed by counsel for both the parties and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                From the pleadings of parties and submitted affidavits, it is made out that complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 28.02.2005 through receipt Ex.C21=Ex.RW1/4 and another amount of Rs.20,000/- on 27.09.2005 through receipt Ex.C25=Ex.RW1/6. So, the admission suffered by Ops in this respect in their written reply and above referred documentary evidence establishes that amount of Rs.45,000/- in fact was paid by the complainant to Ops through receipts as referred above. In these receipts itself, it is mentioned that these fees paid by the complainant to Ops as retainer fee of WWICS. It was on payment of first fee of Rs.25,000/- that an agreement Ex.RW1/3 for providing Gold Package was arrived at between the parties, which was signed by the complainant and also by one Lt.Col. Des Raj on behalf of Ops.

7.                After going through this agreement Ex.RW1/3, it is made out that complainant availed gold package scheme of Ops. Reference of receipt of Rs.25,000/- even made in this Ex.RW1/3. This amount of Rs.25,000/- received as professional fee as per clause-4 of the agreement. As per clause 10 of this agreement, services provided by OP company being technical/professional in nature and that is why, retainer fee is non-refundable. As per clause-10 of Ex.RW1/3, refund of retainer fee would be considered, in case, client is unable to achieve the requisite band in all the four components i.e. speaking, listening, writing and reading despite making two attempts. However, that refund will be to the extent of 50%. This 50% refund will be subject to giving writing by the client to the company and undertaking that he/she is not interested further and his/her case can be             closed. It is not the case of complainant that he made two attempts for achieving the requisite band in IELTS course regarding four components of speaking, listening, writing and reading and as such, retainer fee to the extent of 50% even not refundable     to the complainant, more so, when he even not submitted undertaking regarding his being not interested further. Further, as per clause 10(b) of agreement Ex.RW1/3, the client will be entitled to refund of 50% of retainer fee, if he is declared disqualified in the skills assessment for Australia. Case of complainant is that he opted for PR Canadian Visa and as such, this refund clause 10(b) of agreement Ex.RW1/3 is not applicable.

8.                Even if clause 14 of agreement Ex.RW1/3 regarding referring the matter to Arbitration is there, despite that jurisdiction of this Forum is not barred because it is well settled that remedy available under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act to a consumer is in addition to the remedy available under any other law. So, submission advanced by counsel for Ops has no force that in view of existence of Arbitration clause 14, jurisdiction of this Forum is barred. So, refund of retainer fee is not permissible as per terms of agreement, more so, when Ops performed their duties of rendering services mentioned in clause 1 of Ex.RW1/3.

9.                Clause-1 of Ex.RW1/3 provides that Ops in consultation with Global Strategic Business Consultancy, UAE and its associate companies will provide the following services under the following heads:-

A. Immigration Consultancy Service:-

a) Assist the client in preparation of his/her case for permanent residency for immigration.

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

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

d) Assist in keeping the file up to date and in interview preparation.

B. Ensure rendering services of GSBC and its associates:-

a) Assistance in assessment of educational and professional qualifications from educational and professional bodies.

b) Advise the client about immigration laws of that country.

c) Endorsements and final approval of the case from overseas bodies.

10.              So, from these clauses, it is obvious that Ops first to come in contract with GSBC, UAE(Dubai). In such circumstances, if any fee remitted by Ops to GSBC, UAE (Dubai) on behalf of complainant, then responsibility of availing due services from GSBC, UAE (Dubai) remains of Ops because complainant does not know anything about the contact of Ops with this GSBC, UAE as per his own case. Perusal of document Ex.RW1/5, a letter on letter pad of Government of CHC of Canada reveals that application of complainant Arvind Kumar was received by CHC on 16.05.2005 for permanent residence in Canada and file with number mentioned in this letter was created. In Ex.RW1/5 itself, it is mentioned that complainant should mention this file number in all future correspondence. Receipt of fee submitted on behalf of complainant with CHC is also enclosed with this letter Ex.RW1/5 and as such, it is obvious that amount of Rs.38,000/- paid twice as Rs.19,000/- each on 27.4.2005 and 9.5.2005 was received by CHC. Refund of that amount has been done by CHC is the case of complainant himself and as such in view of refund of that fee by CHC, deficiency in service on the part of Ops cannot be inferred, more so, when in letter Ex.RW1/5 itself, it is mentioned that at least 42 months will take place in assessing the earlier received applications. In Ex.RW1/5 itself, it is mentioned that   in view of unforeseen changes in volumes and available resources for handling the applications, guarantee cannot be provided that screening process of application of complainant will be completed within 42 months. In view of receipt of reference number of file of complainant submitted by Ops with CHC, it is obvious that application of complainant after being prepared was duly submitted with CHC for getting the file number. So, deficiency in service on the part of Ops in this respect is not there at all, more so, when application submitted on 16.05.2005, after receipt of amount of Rs.25000/- on 28.02.2005. Delay in processing was disclosed to the complainant through letter Ex.RW1/5 dated 7.6.2005 itself because the same was received on 25.6.2005 by the complainant as per endorsed stamp with signature of Arvind Kumar complainant on Ex.RW1/5. So, if application of complainant for Visa Process remained pending with CHC from 16.05.2005 onwards, then fault to Ops cannot be attributed.

11.              In case titled as Parwinder Singh vs. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited and others, bearing First Appeal No.192 of 2014, decided on 03.07.2014 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh (Ex.RW1/7), it has been held that in case, application of complainant for permanent resident Visa for Canada submitted by Ops as per terms and conditions of the contract of engagement, but in case time taken by CHC in deciding the application, then deficiency in service on the part of WWICS cannot be found. Moreover, as per ratio of this case, in case, Visa application is rejected by CHC on account of change of law, then by no strength of imagination, it can be said that due to rejection of application, there is deficiency    in service on the part of Ops. Same is the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh in First Appeal No.193 of 2014, decided on 03.07.2014 through case titled as Kamaljit Kaur and Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited and others, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.RW1/8. Rejection of application of complainant by CHC conveyed to Ops and thereafter, same conveyed to complainant through communication Ex.RW1/2 dated 20.11.2013. Through Ex.RW1/2, it has been communicated to complainant by Ops that as his case for PR Visa was prior to February 2008 and that is why, termination of same done by CHC. In Ex.RW1/2 itself, it has been mentioned that Ops have received application form regarding refund from CHC and same has already been submitted online. Through Ex.RW1/2, it has been disclosed to the complainant that as and when, demand draft was received qua refund, then complainant will be disclosed about the same. So, from this communication letter Ex.RW1/2 itself, it is made out that termination of case of complainant took place because of his case being prior to of February 2008. As intimation regarding refund process even was given by Ops to the complainant through Ex.RW1/2 and as such, Ops rendered due services of not only submitting the application with CHC, but even of communicating the reasons for rejection as well as about the process of refund. In view of rendering of these services by Ops to the complainant, they are entitled for retainer fee and as such, submission of complainant has no force that complainant entitled for refund of retainer fee of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- referred above.

12.              Even if the intimation regarding rejection of case of complainant conveyed to complainant on 20.11.2013, despite that complaint is not barred by limitation because request for refund of fees paid by the complainant disapproved by the management on 17.6.2014 is a fact borne from the contents of email communication Ex.C1. It was the date of rejection of request for refund, which gave cause of action to the complainant and as such, complaint being filed within two years from 17.6.2014 i.e. on 12.01.2016 is not barred by limitation at all. Before receipt of this communication dated 17.06.2014, complainant had been sending reminders for refund through emails on 4.5.2014, 27.3.2014 and 14.6.2014 as revealed by contents of Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. However, through Ex.C4, complainant was to visit the branch office of Ops for submission of refund letter and declaration regarding refund process. This communication Ex.C4 is of date 8.5.2014 and as such, it is obvious that Ops kept on promising complainant for initiating refund process on submission of requisite documents until 8.5.2014. That continued       hope in the mind of complainant as if refund will be done and as such, cause of action virtually accrued to the complainant on receipt of final communication Ex.C1 dated 17.6.2014 referred above. Before that complainant kept on knowing the status of refund of fee through email dated 27.04.2014 placed on record as Ex.C5 and also through Ex.C6. Complainant sought for copy of correspondence held with CHC through email Ex.C7 dated 12.3.2014, but before that communication Ex.C8 dated 20.11.2013 was given to complainant through email about termination of his case by CHC because of his case being prior to 2008. Complainant through Ex.C9 dated 5.11.2010 sought information from Ops regarding his PR visa case to Canada by claiming that he submitted application with Ludhiana Branch five years ago. Detail of payments by complainant to Ops also worked out in chart Ex.C10. Through letter Ex.C22, complainant was called upon to deposit amount of Rs.19000/- as Visa processing fee through draft and that is why, demand draft Ex.C23 of that amount dated 27.4.2005 in name of CHC was submitted. Similarly another demand draft of Rs.19000/- dated 9.5.2005 Ex.C24 in favour of CHC was submitted and as such, it is obvious that these fees of Rs.38,000/- submitted through demand drafts were forwarded to CHC as Visa fee by Ops. So, they rendered due services in this respect also. Refund of these Visa fees admittedly has taken place as per contents of complaint itself and as such it is obvious that Ops took due steps for getting the refund of Visa fee made available to complainant.

13.              Complainant deposited 300 US$ on issue of invoice by M/s GSBC, Dubai Ex.C27 dated 28.6.2005 and thereafter, invoice Ex.C28 in that respect was issued by mentioning the file No.29476. These 300US$ received by Mr.Vikas Verma, Branch Manager as per endorsement on Ex.C28 itself. So, it is obvious that this fee of 300 US$ received by Ops and it was after receipt of this fee that demand draft of 300 US$ Ex.C29 was prepared in name of M/s GSBC, Dubai. As already referred above, complainant was not aware of procedure of obtaining Visa or of process thereof and as such, virtually amount of 300 US$ after being accepted from complainant by Ops, was forwarded by them to M/s GSBC, Dubai. In view of closure of case of complainant due to change of law, virtually complainant did not avail services of M/s GSBC, Dubai and as such Ops liable to refund this amount of 300 US$ to complainant, more so, when this amount claimed by Ops from the complainant and he himself did not submit this amount of 300 US$ directly to M/s GSBC, Dubai. As professional services regarding process of Visa and matters connected therewith were to be rendered by Ops to the complainant as per agreement Ex.RW1/3 and as such, it was for Ops to see that amount of 300 US$ sent to M/s GSBC, Dubai at appropriate time, when these services were required. Had that precaution been taken by Ops, then complainant would not have been divested of amount of 300 US$ collected by Ops from the complainant for transmission of same to Dubai. As Ops were in contact with the professional consultancy firm at Dubai and that is why, they got the agreement having pages Ex.C17 to Ex.C20 provided to the complainant. On this agreement consisting of pages Ex.C17 to Ex.C20, though signatures of complainant with date 28.02.2005 is there, but signatures of witnesses are not there. Ops have produced on record Ex.RW1/3, which infact is the same thing as is Ex.C17 to Ex.C20. On Ex.RW1/3, signatures of one Vikas Verma witness with date of 28.02.2005 are there, but these signatures of that person are not there on Ex.C20, the last page of same agreement, the pages of which are produced on record as Ex.C17 to Ex.C20 by the complainant. So, certainly submission advanced by complainant has force that produced document Ex.RW1/3 is not the same thing as is the documents provided to the complainant in the shape of pages Ex.C17 to Ex.C20. However, through clause-1 of this agreement, Ops agreed to provide services of GSBC, UAE for immigration consultancy services and even agreed for ensuring rendering of service    of GSBC, UAE and its associates and as such, virtually complainant relied upon Ops for availing services of GSBC, UAE (Dubai). There is nothing on record to suggest as to what sort of services of GSBC, Dubai got provided to the complainant by Ops and if that be the position, then responsibility of refund of 300 US$ remains of Ops in view of clause-1 of agreement.

14.              Counsel for Ops has placed reliance upon agreement Ex.RW1/9 arrived at by complainant with GSBC, Dubai for arguing that said concern has not been impleaded as party and as such, complaint bad due to non-joinder of that party. That submission of counsel for Ops has no force because if agreement Ex.RW1/9 was arrived at between the complainant and said GSBC, Dubai, then copy of this agreement would have been in the hands of complainant and not with Ops. However, this copy of agreement Ex.RW1/9 is produced by Ops because of the fact that they agreed to get rendered the services of GSBC, Dubai to complainant, being its associates. This Ex.RW1/9 being entered with Dubai concern should have been got signed on date different then 28.02.2005, when contract agreement containing pages Ex.C17 to Ex.C20=Ex.RW1/3 was entered by complainant with Ops because question of availing services of GSBC, Dubai to arise only after the process for PR Visa started after submission of application with CHC. That application with CHC submitted on 16.05.2005 is a fact borne from contents of Ex.RW1/5 as referred above. However, date of execution of agreement Ex.RW1/9 with GSBC, Dubai is the same namely 28.02.2005 as is the date, on which, agreement arrived at between the complainant and Ops as evidenced by Ex.C17 to Ex.C20=Ex.RW1/3. So, sequence of these events certainly lends credence to the submission advanced by complainant that in fact, agreement Ex.RW1/9 prepared by Ops at one and the same time at which Ex.RW1/3= Ex.C17 to Ex.C20 was prepared. In view of that by particularly referring clause 1 of Ex.RW1/3, there remains no escape from conclusion that responsibility of availing services of GSBC, Dubai for complainant was of Ops and that is why 300 US$ submitted through Ops. Ex.RW1/10 to Ex.RW1/12 are the same documents as are Ex.C23 and Ex.C24. As amount of 300 US$ submitted by Ops to GSBC, Dubai without disclosing the actual purpose for the same and agreement with GSBC, Dubai virtually got executed by OP1 and OP2 for helping GSBC, Dubai to retain 300 US$, but without proof of rendering of services by the said Dubai concern and as such, certainly Ops should be held liable to refund this amount or the equivalent thereof in Indian currency. Benefit from ratio of case titled as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited vs. Manohar Singh Randhawa, bearing Revision Petition No.3334 of 2010, decided on 8.3.2011 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (copy produced as Ex.RW1/13) cannot be gained by Ops because of different facts and circumstances of the present case, than that of cited case. Even if there is no privity of contract between the complainant and GSBC, Dubai, despite that by keeping the complainant in dark, the amount was remitted by Ops to that concern and as such it remains the responsibility of Ops to get that amount refunded to the complainant from GSBC, Dubai, more so, when their services not shown to be got provided to the complainant, though assured so by Ops.

15.              Complainant through letter Ex.C36 was informed as if CHC provided file number of his case and as such, it is obvious that complainant was kept informed about the progress of his case file submitted with CHC. Through Ex.C37, complainant was called upon for interview, even if he did not pass the IELTS and as such, it is obvious that present is a case, in which, complainant himself remained unsuccessful in qualifying for IELTS. For that, fault to Ops cannot be attributed, moreover so, when complainant was specifically made known about the fact qua passing of IELTS course, as an essential condition for getting Canadian Visa. So, if for doing IELTS course, complainant paid fees, then the same was for fulfilling the requisite qualification for PR Visa. Those fees cannot be ordered to be refunded by way of compensation even because fault in not getting IELTS cleared remains of complainant and not of Ops. There is nothing on record to suggest that complainant even after not clearing IELTS, again made second attempt and as such, refund of 50% as per above referred clauses not ordered.

16.              It is the case of complainant put forth through para no.4 in amended complaint that Ops liable to refund 300 US$ fee paid to Global Company, but in para no.8 of same, it is admitted that embassy fee of 999.32 US$ has been refunded by CHC on 2.3.2014. Case of Ops in the written reply in this respect is that they are not liable to refund 300 US$ paid to GSBC, Dubai by the complainant. From these facts, it is made out that complainant is seeking refund of 300 US$ paid to GSBC, Dubai through OP1 and OP2, even though, he(complainant) has received the refund of Visa fee paid to CHC. Fault in not getting refund of 300 US$ provided to          the complainant remains with Ops because of their connivance with GSBC, Dubai as pointed above and as such, complainant certainly entitled to refund of this 300 US$, which is determined equivalent to Rs.20,000/- in Indian Currency. Complainant was divested of the interest of this amount of Rs.20,000/- since from 2005 and as such, it is fit and appropriate to allow Rs.20,000/- more on account of loss of interest on the above referred amount of Rs.20,000/- assessed equal to 300US$. In view of non-refund of 300 US$, complainant stood dragged in this litigation and as such, he suffered mental agony and harassment, due to which, he is entitled for reasonable amount of compensation and to litigation expense, more so, when the refund of Visa fee from CHC got made by Ops by making efforts in this respect as discussed above. Deficiency in service on the part of Ops on other aspects is not there at all and as such, complainant is not entitled for refund of retainer fee or of other charges          collected by Ops as discussed above. No other point argued.

17.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to Ops to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant on account of loss of 300US$ since from 2005. This amount of Rs.40,000/- assessed by calculating the interest taken as double of amount of Rs.20,000/-. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops. Liability of Ops held as joint and several. Payment of above referred amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, complainant will be entitled to interest @8% per annum on the above referred three amounts w.e.f. today till payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

18.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Vinod Gulati)                                        (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:20.08.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.