Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/224/2015

Baljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Worldwide Immigration - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Sonia Saini Adv.

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	224 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	04.05.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	26.02.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Baljit Singh, aged 52 years, son of Sh.Laxman Singh, resident of H.No.893, Sector 25, Panchkula.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Incharge.

 

2]  Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., having its Corporate Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali through its Incharge.

 

3]  Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd, A-31/A, 3^rd Floor, Near Raja Garden, Flyover, Above Yamaha Showroom, Ring Road, Rajauri Garden, New Delhi, through its Incharge.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Ms.Sonia Saini, Advocate  

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Raman Walia, Advocate

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the Opposite Party No.1 represented the complainant that it alongwith Opposite Party NO.2 & 3 arrange job/employment and permanent resident Visa for Canada under skilled worker category within two years from the date of application. The Opposite Party No.1 got signed/entered into contract of Engagement (Skilled Worker Category) from/with the complainant on 30.11.2010 and the Opposite Party No.1 received Rs.65000/- and Rs.70,000/- through DD dated 30.11.2010. That Opposite Party No.1 also received 10,500/- US $ on account of visa fee from the complainant for arranging the said Visa.  It is stated that Opposite Party No.1 assured that the said job and visa will be arranged within two years from the date of application i.e. from 30.11.2010.  Thereafter, the complainant also paid an amount of Rs.67000/- through cheque on 14.12.2012.  However, when the Opposite Parties failed to arrange job and visa to the complainant within agreed time i.e. upto 14.12.2014, so the complainant on 15.12.2014 applied for refund of his deposited amount with the OPs, whereupon the OPs have approved the refund of only 7800 US $ and Rs.45000/- and sought consent of the complainant.  The complainant was not agreed with the said offer of the Opposite Parties and as such sent representation through mail dated 13.1.2014 to Opposite Party NO.1 that as he had paid a total sum of Rs.2,02,000/- plus 10500 US $ to them, so the said entire amount be refunded, but they did not do so. It is also averred that the OPs have refunded entire money to some persons in similar situation and one of those persons is Ms.Archna whose application number was 65463.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and admitted that Contract of Engagement (Ann.R-1) dated 30.11.2010 was entered into between the parties with regard to Skilled Worker Category and the second Contract of Engagement (Ann.R-2) was with regard to Job Offer-Arranged Employment Opinion.  It is stated that the total fee admissible was Rs.70,000/- each out of which the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.1.35 lacs instead of Rs.1.40 lacs.  It is also stated that another Contract of Engagement dated 30.11.2010 was entered into with M/s GSBC, Dubai (Ann.R-3) and as per the said contract a total amount of US $ 10500 was to be paid.  However, the complainant made a payment of Rs.1,97,800/- vide receipt dated 2.12.2010 as regard payment of US $ 4500 and an amount of US $ 6000 was paid vide Receipt dated 25.6.2011 (valued at Rs.2.70 lacs as on 25.6.2011) with regard to fee payable to M/s GSBC, Dubai. 

 

         It is pleaded that total amount of fee received from the complainant comes to Rs.6,62,800/- (including the dollar payment) out of which an amount of Rs.5,75,300/- has already been refunded to the complainant, which is in excess of amount admissible to him as per refund clause of the contract.  It is also pleaded that the complainant received job offer from M/s Smart Tire and Body Work Inc., but the same was not approved by the Canadian Government (Ann.R-6) and complainant was duly informed about the same.  It is pleaded that as per the contract entered into between the parties, the complainant was not entitled to any refund, but on sympathetic consideration, the Company had allowed refund of Rs.5,75,300/- which is over and above admissible to the complainant as per the refund clause.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

          

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       Admittedly, the complainant had paid Rs.3,92,800/-, which includes payment of Rs.65000/-, Rs.70,000/-, Rs.67000/- and 6000 US $ on 30.11.2010, 2.12.2010, 25.6.2011 and 11.12.2012 respectively as consultancy and auxiliary charges to the OPs for the process of his case for permanent residency and contract of employment in Canada, as per the terms & conditions of the agreement placed on record by the complainant as well as the Opposite Parties vide Ann.C-1/R-1 executed on 30.11.2010.  The Opposite Parties had promised to process the case of the complainant and successfully arrange for such facilities within a period of two years enabling him to reach Canada possessed with qualification for his permanent residency in that country. The complainant claims that the Opposite Parties failed to arrange the visa for complainant’s permanent residency in Canada within promised period of time of two years and the complainant had sought the refund of the amount paid by him vide his letter dated 18.12.2014 claiming that he was entitled for such refund after the completion of two years from the date of entering into the agreement dated 30.11.2010. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as even after the passage of promised period of two years, the OPs failed to manage permanent residency visa of Canada, hence he was entitled for refund as per agreed terms & conditions and the OPs having failed to refund the money due towards him, have acted in a deficient manner.    

 

6]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant have come forward to make the payment of Rs.5,75,300/- on 16.7.2015 vide cheque dated 14.7.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, during the proceedings of the present complaint, as the case was listed for compromise between the parties.  Thereafter, the complainant preferred to contest his present complaint on merit claiming that he was entitled for more money than what has been offered to him.    

 

7]       The Opposite Parties have placed on record a letter dated 7.1.2015, which was in response to the letter dated 18.12.2014 written by the complainant for the refund of his amount claiming that the complainant has preferred the present complaint even though an offer of refund of Rs.45000/- plus 7800 US $ was offered through their letter dated 7.1.2015.  The complainant while mentioning his grouse has claimed that the settlement offered by the Opposite Parties as per Ann.C-12, dated 7.1.2015, was not acceptable to him as the amount offered was much less than what he was entitled for, as per his relief clause, he has claimed Rs.8,32,000/-, which included Rs.6,30,000/- towards payment 10500 US $ and Rs.2,02,000/- paid in different installments. 

 

8]       The documents placed on record by the complainant clearly indicate that the agreement was signed on 30.11.2010 and the OPs were duty bound to process his case within the stipulated period of two years of entire payment of the fee as agreed upon.  As the complainant paid his last installment on 11.12.2012, therefore, his agreed period of seeking refund was upto 10.12.2014.  The complainant has moved his application dated 18.12.2014 and as the Opposite Parties failed to respond in the promised manner, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on their part. The communication dated 7.1.2015 is clearly indicative of the fact that the demand of refund of the complainant was just & fair, which was processed by the OPs on his request dated 18.12.2014, as the OPs failed to secure permanent residency visa for him within two years of his last payment.  Therefore, as per the terms & conditions of the agreement, the Opposite Parties having agreed to the refund, cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service on their part on this score.  However, the promise to refund Rs.45,000/- along with 7800 US $ as on 7.1.2015 and seeking consent of the complainant for such offer deserves to be looked into whether the Opposite Parties had acted against the terms & conditions of the refund.  The Opposite Parties have placed on record the exchange rate of US dollars as on 25.2.2011, as Rs.44.9955 for One US $ (Dollar). Therefore, in these terms, the complainant had spent Rs.2,69,973/- while purchasing 6000 US Dollars paid to the Opposite Parties vide Page No.32 of Reply, dated 25.6.2011, which has not been contested by the complainant by placing on record any other certified document of exchange rate as applicable on 25.6.2011.  Therefore, the complainant having paid a total of Rs.2,02,000/- plus Rs.2,69,973/- i.e. total Rs.4,71,973/- plus Rs.1,97,800/- vide Cheque dated 2.12.2010 towards the payment of 4500 US $, making it total to Rs.6,69,773/-.  The payment of Rs.1,97,800/- against 4500 US dollars on 2.12.2010 proves that the value of One US Dollar on 2.12.2010 was approximately Rs.43.955/- which is very close to the value disclosed by the OPs on 25.2.2011. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the complainant had parted with a total of Rs.6,69,773/- till 11.12.2012, when the agreed period of two years of agreement beginning to run.  The complainant though has claimed Rs.8,32,000/- without disclosing the value of US Dollar as calculated by him and in the absence of any proof, supporting such quantum of claim and also not having contested the value of dollar disclosed by the parties in the year 2011, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any higher value of exchange rate of US Dollar in his favour as the value of money he had parted with upto 11.12.2012 was only Rs.6,69,773/-. 

 

9]       The complainant’s entitlement for refund had become valid on 10.12.2014 in pursuance of which the complainant requested the refund through his letter dated 18.12.2014 (Ann.R-8).  However, the complainant is aggrieved of the offer of refund as per the letter of Opposite Parties dated 7.1.2015 (Ann.C-12) through which the Opposite Parties offered 7800 US Dollars and Rs.45000/- and even demanded the complainant’s consent for such amount, meaning thereby, that the Opposite Parties being in a dominant position were dictating the complainant to receive the offered amount, rather than what he was entitled for and such entitlement of the complainant has not been disclosed in correct figures by the Opposite Parties, even the amount i.e. 7800 US dollars would translate into on 7.1.2015 too has not been disclosed by the OPs.  Therefore, the amount of Rs.4,37,800/- disclosed by the Opposite Parties in Para No.6 of their Reply, for which the complainant was entitled, as per the terms & conditions of the Contract of Engagements, too cannot be believed. Non-disclosure of actual entitlement of the complainant by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

 

10]      In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the concerted opinion that the complainant having failed in demonstrating the exact amount of his entitle for refund, we are left with no option but to declare that the amount paid by the Opposite Parties i.e. Rs.5,75,300/- is just & fair in terms of the terms & conditions of the contract of engagements, which included certain deductions by the Opposite Parties at the time of making refunds.  However, we feel that the complainant had to resort to seek remedy before this Forum, he also becomes entitled for an interest on the amount of Rs.5,75,300/- from the date when it became due i.e. 10.11.2014 upto the date when it was disbursed i.e. 16.7.2015. Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the same is allowed and the OPs are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

 [a] To pay the interest amount at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,75,300/- w.e.f. 10.11.2014 till 16.7.2015 i.e. the date of due disbursement and the date of actual payment.

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

 

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

 

Announced

26^th February, 2016                                                              

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER