Punjab

Amritsar

CC/15/590

Gurinder Singh Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

Worldwide Immigration - Opp.Party(s)

S. Deepinder Singh

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S.Panesar,President.

1. Sh. Gurinder Singh Grover complainant has filed the present complaint under section  12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant has applied for the immigration to Canada alongwith his family members  and having hired the services of the opposite party for the purpose. Opposite party has assured the complainant that they would provide all the  inputs required for the immigration to Canada for complainant and his family. The opposite party initially charged Rs. 30000/- for the said purpose and thereafter opposite party prepared the document required for the immigration purpose  and got deposited the application of the complainant with the Canadian High Commission and the amount of Rs. 20600/- was also got deposited with the said  Commission. Opposite party again charged Rs. 15000/- and US $ 300 from the complainant for the process of the case of the complainant with the Canadian High Commission and told the complainant that his file is under  the kind consideration of Canadian High Commission and would be sent to Canada shortly. Opposite party vide letter dated 19.10.2013 informed the complainant that his case has not been succeeded  at the Canadian High Commission and refunded the amount of Rs. 32,258/06 paise. It is pertinent to mention over here that the opposite party has not forwarded any document purportedly received from the Canadian Embassy  . The opposite party has been proceeding the case of the complainant since the year 2007 but had failed to proceed with the case file of the complainant. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

1. Opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50000/- and to refund the amount of Rs. 45000/- and US $ 300 or equivalent amount  in Indian Currency  taken by opposite party alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization.
2. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- may also be awarded to the complainant alongwith adequate litigation expenses.

Hence, this complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the case of the complainant by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present case is a case of change in immigration rules by the Canadian Authorities after the filing of the case of the complainant before the Canadian High Commission which is beyond the control of the answering opposite party, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The case of the complainant was duly prepared and file in the best possible manner with the Canadian High Commission on 26.3.2007 and the complainant was allotted a File Number vide letter dated 11.5.2007. thus the answering opposite party had rendered all the services  to the complainant  However, as a bad luck of the complainant, the Canadian Government introduce a new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act which became a law on 29.6.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by the operation of law. Thus, it is clear that the answering opposite party is nowhere deficient in service and has already performed all the duties which the opposite party was required to perform as per the Contract of Engagement dated 15.1.2007. The case of the complainant got delayed due to huge backlog of cases as well as change in immigration rules. Moreover, vide letter dated 11.5.2007 Canadian  High Commission had informed the complainant that 48-54 months will be taken for initial screening of his application. Thus the complainant is not entitled to any refund in view of clause 10 of the Contract of Engagement dated 15.1.2007, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed  ; that present complaint is also liable to be dismissed  as there is no deficiency nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party ; that complaint is bad on account of non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant had entered into another contract with M/s. Global Strategic Business  Consultancy Corporation, UAE dated 15.1.2007 and had paid an amount ofUS$300 to the said company but the said company had not been arrayed as an opposite party in the present complaint, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has paid an amount of  Rs. 45,000/-  towards the fee of respondent and an amount of US$ 300 has been paid by the complainant to M/s. GSBC, Dubai . Further an amount of Rs. 20,600/- was paid by the complainant  towards the visa processing fee of the Canadian Embassy which has already been refunded to the complainant vide DD dated 1.10.2013 for an amount of Rs. 32,258.06 paise. The case of the complainant was duly prepared and filed in the best possible manner with the Canadian High Commission on 26.3.2007 and the complainant was allotted a file number vide letter dated 11.5.2007 in respect to permanent immigration case of the complainant. Thus the answering opposite party had rendered all the services  which the complainant was entitled to . The present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as the case of the complainant was terminated on 24.5.2013 and the limitation to file the present complaint was only till 23.5.2015, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 21.9.2015 which is barred by limitation . Remaining facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

3.                In his bid to prove the case Sh.Deepinder Singh, Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.                To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Munish Menon,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj, authorized  representative Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to  Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.                We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.                From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant had applied for immigration to Canada alongwith his family member and had hired the services of the opposite party for the purpose. As such the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. Opposite party  had assured the complainant that they would provide all the inputs required for the immigration for complainant and his family . Opposite party initially charged Rs. 30000/- for the said purpose, copy of the receipt accounts for Ex.C-5 on record. Thereafter the opposite party prepared the documents required for immigration purposes and got deposited the  application of the complainant with Canadian High Commission  and the amount of Rs. 20,600/- was also got deposited with the said Commission. Opposite party again charged Rs. 15000/- and US $ 300 from the complainant for the process of the case of the complainant with Canadian High Commission. Thereafter the complainant was told that his file is under kind consideration of Canadian High Commission and would be sent to Canada shortly. Opposite party vide their letter dated 19.10.2013 informed the complainant that his case could not succeed at the Canadian High Commission and refunded the amount of Rs. 32,258.06 paise. It is pertinent to mention  over here that opposite party had not forwarded the copies of any document purportedly received from the Canadian Embassy.  As a matter of fact the immigration case of the complainant did not succeed on account of fact that opposite parties were negligent & they failed to proceed with the case file of the complainant properly. The aforesaid act of the opposite party is an act of deficiency in service , unfair trade practice and mal-practice and is not sustainable in the eye of law . It has caused a lot of mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant besides financial loss to the complainant for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

7.                 From scrutiny of evidence, it becomes evident that the opposite party had extracted a sum of Rs. 30000/-, Rs. 20,600/- , Rs.15000/- and US $ 300 from the complainant at different dates for processing the case of the complainant and his family for immigration to Canada. But, however, as per  information provided by the opposite party the application for the immigration was not allowed by the Canadian High Commission due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  It has come on record that a sum of Rs. 32,258.06 paise only have been refunded by the opposite party to the complainant, whereas a total sum of Rs. 33,342/- alongwith US $300 have not been refunded by the opposite party for the reasons best known to them. As per law laid down in Revision Petition No.3334 of 2010 titled as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd Vs. Manohar Singh Randhawa decided on 8.3.2011 by the Hon’ble National Commission in similar  set of facts, it was held that in the result, the petitions are partly allowed and the impugned orders passed by the fora below in so far they have directed the petitioner to refund the sum of 1500 US dollars alongwith fee/charges of Rs. 30000/-/45000/- received by them is hereby set-aside and the liability of the petitioner is restricted to refund the amount of Rs. 30000/- . So far as the amount of 1500 US dollars deposited by the complainant with Worldwide Immigration  Consultancy Services Canada is concerned, we simply observe that it would be for the complainant to work out their remedy in accordance with law.  Facts of authority ‘supra’ are analogous to the facts of the present case and the same is applicable to the present case on all its fours. Applying the ratio of judgement supra, it is worthwhile to hold that the  complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 33,342/- as detailed above, whereas  for the refund of US$300/-, the complainant is at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law. The complaint stands allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. Opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 33,342/-  within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, awarded amount shall carry  interest @ 9%  p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated :4.10.2016

/R/