Baljeet Singh, H.No.640, St. No.24, G.G.S.Nagar, Brota Road, New Shimla Puri, Ludhiana.
.…Complainant
Versus
1. The Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. Noble Enclave, 2nd Floor, Opp. Hotel Park Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
2. The Managing Director, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area Phase-6, Mohali.
…..Opposite parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President
Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member
Smt.Babita, Member
Present: Complainant Sh.Baljeet Singh in person.
Sh.G.S.Sandher, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
(SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)
1. Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Baljeet Singh, H.No.640, St. No.24, G.G.S.Nagar, Brota Road, New Shimla Puri, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against The Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. Noble Enclave, 2nd Floor, Opp. Hotel Park Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,37,918/-, which the complainant had paid towards the services never provided to him at the earliest, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant, to pay sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant or pass any such orders and reliefs deemed fit and proper by this Forum.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that on December 24th 2013, he took the services of OP1 and applied fro Australian PR Visa. The complainant had paid a huge amount to the OP1 on different dates and modes. The complainant had paid for following services; Vetaasses-$710, Rs.41,120/- on March 21st 2014, vide receipt no.RV095529 and WWICS Rs.61,798/- paid through cheque on December 24th 20134 vide cheque no.002213 dated 10.08.13 and the file number being C13-998979, ILETS Rs.10,000/- other documents- Rs.20,000/-. In addition to that 5 times visit from Ambala to Ludhiana which comes as Rs.5000/-. The complainant had spent a total of Rs.1,37,918/- towards the services. The complainant states that due to information, all the process was being rejected by the Embassy. The complainant had worked with Tata Group since 2003 whereas the OP1 mentioned it since 2005. Also the profile of Record Manager the executive of the OP suggested the complainant did not meet with his BCA Qualification. Due to the wrong processing and unmatched job profile PF Got rejected. Also the OP1 sharing fake mails of the data of their own which the complainant had provided them. Complainant sent several requests to resolve the issue, but he did not receive any response from the OPs. The complainant decided to terminate the services for which he had paid and transfer his refund. After several E-mail reminders the complainant did not receive any response. Complainant even sent a letter dated 9.10.14 to the Ops stating in detail his grievance in the hope of receiving a positive response, but was sadly disappointed. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. On notice of the complaint, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is neither any deficiency nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant had engaged the services of the OPs by entering into a Contract of Engagement dated 24.12.13 for getting his Skill Assessment done from Vetassess (skill Assessment Authority of Australia). The complainant paid a total fee of Rs.55,000/- against which a receipt for the same was issued to the complainant dated 24.12.13. As per the contract the complainant was to pay Rs.60,000/- however a discount of Rs.5000/- was given to the complainant. He further paid an amount of AUD 710 towards Skill Assessment fee of the respective Skill Assessment body of Australia i.e. “VETASSESS”, which is non refundable. As per the agreement the complainant was to submit the complete case filing documents with the company so that company could further file the case of the complainant for getting Skill Assessment from the respective Skill Assessment body. Complainant in his assessment form has clearly mentioned that he has worked as ‘Records Manager’ as full time for the past seven years. The complainant submitted the complete case filing documents to the company and the complete case of the complainant was duly filed for Skill Assessment by the Ops before “VETASSESS” online on 20.3.14. The same was intimated to the complainant vide e-mail dated 24.3.14. The application of the complainant was got acknowledge by VETASSESS stating that they have received the application of the complainant alongwith the necessary documents and it being processed. VETASSESS further stated that document check list status will be updated within 2-3 weeks and if they require any further documentation, the same shall be intimated by them via e-mail. This information further intimated to the complainant vide e-mail dated 27.3.14. The processing of the application was got completed by VETASSESS and thereafter they sent an e-mail dated 3.7.14 wherein the demanded transcript of Education Courses in order to assess his case. The outstanding documents were submitted to VETASSESS by the company vide e-mail dated 26.7.14. VETASSESS completed the processing of the application of the complainant and declared its result wherein they have stated that application for Skills Recognition-General Occupations has been complete and the result letter will be available within 2 business days. The result dated 21.8.14 was declared negative by the skill assessment body mainly on the ground that the complainant appears to be in procurement as opposed to the records management, thus the skill assessment was given negative by VETASSESS. The role of the Ops was only to complete, prepare, submit a case for skill assessment from the respective assessing authority in Australia and the Ops have no domain over the assessing authority, however, the negative outcome of the results was taken up with the VETASSESS by the OPs for explanation on issuing negative skills vide e-mail dated 19.09.14. Thereafter the Assessment Office Skills Recognition-General Occupations, VETASSESS vide e-mail dated 22.09.14 gave a full length explanation regarding the negative outcome, wherein it is clearly mentioned that skill level of the applicant is below than as required for the nominated occupation. The Ops is nowhere at fault and have performed their part of the contract. Further submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any refund in view of Clause 11 (1) of the Contract of Engagement which was signed by the complainant with the Ops wherein it has been specifically stated that ‘the services provided by the company being professional in nature, the entire fee if non-refundable”. Further as per clause 11 (II) of the agreement wherein it is also stated that “even if the client is declared disqualified in skill assessment for Australia by the respective Skill Assessment body, the retained fee is totally non-refundable”. Further as per clause 11 (IV) of the agreement wherein it is also stated that “Since Skill Assessment Fee is paid to the processing Skill Assessment Body, refund of same shall not be claimed from the company.” Further as per clause 11 (V) of the agreement which clearly stated that “taxes (if any) paid shall not be refundable.” Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any refund as claimed by him and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. Further submitted that out of the amount of Rs.61798/- and amount of Rs.6798/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant, which is totally un-refundable as the same has gone into Government account as is clear from the Receipt dated 24.12.13. On merits denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Ld. Counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Sh.Baljeet Singh Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Ops has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj, Authorized Representative, M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Service Limited, Head Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali Ex.RA and also attached documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R19.
5. Complainant filed written arguments, whereby submitted that on December 24th 2013, he took the services of OP1 and applied for Australian PR Visa. The complainant had paid a huge amount to the OP1 on different dates and modes. The complainant had spent a total of Rs.1,37,918/- towards the services. The complainant states that due to wrong information, all the process was being rejected by the Embassy. The complainant had worked with Tata Group since 2003 whereas the OP1 mentioned it since 2005. Due to the wrong processing and unmatched job profile PF Got rejected. The complainant decided to terminate the services for which he had paid and transfer his refund. After several E-mail reminders the complainant did not receive any response. Complainant even sent a letter dated 9.10.14 to the Ops stating in detail his grievance in the hope of receiving a positive responsible, but with no result.
6. Ld. Counsel for Ops filed written arguments, wherein reiterating the facts of the written statements submitted that the complainant had engaged the services of OPs by entering into a contract of engagement. He paid a total fee of Rs.55,000/- against which a receipt was issued to him. It is pertinent to mention here that the amount of Rs.6798/- was paid as taxes which is evident from the receipt. It is further clarified that an amount of Australian Dollar 710 was paid as fee to respective skill assessment body which is evident from Exhibit Ex.r3 and the same cannot be claimed by the complainant from the OPs. Therefore, the OPs have received only Rs.55,000/- from the complainant and other payments as alleged by the complainant are wrong and denied and the same cannot be claimed by the OPs as the same was non-refundable as per clause 7 of the Contract of engagement dated 24.12.13 and the same is being reproduced as under:-
“Clause 7:- Fee Charged by Skill Assessment Body:
In addition to the fee of Company, the Client agrees and undertakes to pay the Skill Assessment Fee in accordance with the current assessment requirements of the assessing authority in Australia. Since the Skill Assessment fees is paid to the assessment Authorities, the client shall not seek refund of the said fee from the Company”.
The complainant has made defamatory remarks in the present complaint against the OPs for which the Ops reserve right to proceed against the complainant for defamation. The Ops have provided complete services to the complainant by getting his skill assessment done from VETASSESS regarding which the complainant had signed (Exhibit R-1). The Ops have no domain over the assessing authority who assess the case of an individual as per their own norms. The Ops have provided complete services to the complainant, however, VETASSESS vide e-mail dated 22.09.14 gave a full length explanation regarding the negative outcome Exhibit R15, wherein it is clearly mentioned that skill level of the applicant is below than is required for the nominated occupation, thus the OPs are nowhere at fault.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the OPs and have gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties and the entire record placed on file.
8. It is evident that complainant availed the services of OPs for applying for Australian PR Visa and complainant had spent a total amount of Rs.1,37,918/- towards the services. As the case has been rejected by VETASSESS on the ground that the complainant appears to be in procurement as opposed to the records management, the complainant had worked with Tata Group since 2003 whereas the OP1 mentioned it since 2005. Also the profile of Record Manager the executive of the OP suggested the complainant did not meet with his BCA Qualification. Due to the wrong processing and unmatched job profile PF Got rejected. Thus the skill assessment was given negative by VETASSESS. It was wrong averments for the OPs that the role of the Ops is only to complete, prepare, submit a case for skill assessment from the respective assessing authority in Australia. It was incumbent on the part of the Ops to evaluate the case in all respects and to process, whether his case is fit for sending to assessing authority in Australia, it cannot act as simply post office. They must have their own of experts team for the said purposes of evaluation, whether the case fulfilled all the requisite formalities for assessment or not? Thus Ops are found to be deficient in their services.
9. Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to refund the amount of Rs.61,798/- less Rs.6798/-, which the Ops have paid to the Government as Services Tax. Further Ops are directed to pay Rs.2500/-(Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(Babita) (S.P.Garg) (R.L.Ahuja)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:29.04.2015
Hardeep Singh
