PER
Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that induced/lured by big dreams shown by OPs through the Ads of OPs on TV & others sources, the complainant was enticed to provide services for PR/Visa for herself & her family comprising of herself, her husband & one daughter (at the time of application) now 2nd daughter also, for the country Canada. The complainant was the main applicant. The contract was executed under Quebec Skilled Worker category in Canada for the job of GNM after the OPS assessed the entire merit by calculating points which as per their own calculations, worked out to be 60 which they said that the requirement of points for PR is 57 and the C was assured sure shot success i.e. 100% success on the basis of qualification age experience, kids, spouse age, IELTS, 1 baby, funds etc, leaving no doubt in the mind of complainant. The O.Ps thoroughly examined the profile of the complainant and assured that there is not even a single lacunae or shortcoming in the entire profile as the information supplied by the complainant was true and correct. The complainant was employed as Staff Nurse by the Directorate of Health & family welfare Punjab vide letter No. 6(3)-H-1606 Dt. 30-06-2011 and since then the complainant is rendering good services to the department being a qualified Nurse. The O.Ps got so many documents signed on dotted lines without explaining the entire contents contained in voluminous drafts of contracts which are fully unilateral. Signing on dotted lines means compulsion where consumer has no option. When the complainant was fully assured and satisfied about the success of the case; deposited Rs. 1,38,000/- (Rs. One lac thirty eight thousand only) vide cheque No.967191 and Rs. 31890/- (Rs. Thirty one thousand eight hundred ninety only) vide cheque No. 967193 of PNB, both dated 16th July, 2016 cheques and these cheques were credited to the account of OPs. The OPs assessed and examined the profile of the complainant who is a qualified Nurse, registered with Punjab, Nurses Registration Council after having taken course of Study at SGTB Hospital, Amritsar. The O.Ps also examined funds/salaries of the complainant and her family by way of ITR for the complainant and of her husband also. Though O.Ps. satisfied themselves with the funds of the complainant and her family which prove the affordability of the family for PR to Canada, processed the case further. The O.Ps. further examined the passports of the complainant and her husband as well as of daughter which were valid at that time After the entire case was processed and after the case was forwarded to the Immigration Authorities where the objection was raised which the O.Ps. failed either to foresee or failed to clarify their stand and failed miserably to get the PR visa approved leaving the dreams of complainant. The O.Ps. failed to render proper services which was assured by them and which was also expected from them. The question arises whether O.Ps. had little expertise to examine the merit of the case have no good workers/ employees qualified enough to scrutinize the case in the true sense as well as letter and spirit and causing lot of inconvenience to the public at large. The O.Ps. have thus resorted to unfair trade practice by minting lots of money from the complainant and other people and not to refund full amount without caring for the promises made by them to the complainant and general public. The O.Ps are mainly concerned about filling their coffers and have amassed lot of wealth, (as read in newspapers) through this unfair trade practice resorted by O.Ps. deceptively as define in section 2 (1) (r) of Consumer Protection Act and not to bother to render proper service in an honest manner. There are masses in Punjab who yearn to visit/settle in foreign countries with green pastures and immigration and passport offices are flooded with people in long queues. This desire of the people makes the Immigration Service Providers to thrive on. With this lots of wealth, they gain might and a poor consumer cannot fight the might of the OPs. At that time opposite parties and its official obtained signature of application on some forms, stamps, blank paper and also obtained passport and photocopies thereof and photo stat copies all relevant documents/ testimonials etc. from me and he/they received that these are required for completion of formalities and to submit case file for P.R visa etc. and to provide service. O.Ps have failed to honor the promise and to provide service and for getting PR Visa. The opposite parties started denying on ground that norms of Canadian Embassy changed and now they desire diploma in nursing for P.R while at the time of settlement there was no such terms or conditions. Undersigned and her husband approached the opposite parties but all-in vain. Application was also moved to commissioner of police Amritsar dt. 19.11.2017 diary No. 44870 CD1. The O.Ps issued Cheque No. 963006 for Rs.10000 and Cheque no. 96307 for Rs. 65250/- of Axis Bank in my favor as part payment of refund as such total complete amount out of Rs. 1,69,890/-received by O.Ps. from complainant which is refundable. Inspite of repeated request of complainant, the O.Ps have not refunded that whole amount, plea if any taken by opposite parties is wrong that the opposite parties were the Service Provider for obtaining immigration/ visa but they failed to do so on all points, resultantly no service with respect to immigration and P.R as well as visa was provided to me. The opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice as they failed to honor promise and to provide service and for providing immigration P.R visa as such same falls under ambit of consumers redressed and consumers protection Act. As the opposite parties are running their business to provide their service for immigration, visa etc. as above the deponent is legally entitled for relief as sought for and prayed that the O.Ps be directed to get their promises fulfilled for obtaining Visa/PR or in the alternative refund balance Rs. 94640/- out of Rs. 1,69,890/- as paid by the complainant with interest @ 12% P.A. as envisaged Interest Act 1978 and also to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges. Alongwith the complaint the complainant has placed on record documents Ex. C-1 to C-6.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the principle of Promissory Estoppel as the complainant vide consent letters for an amount of Rs.36,000/-, Rs.10,000/- & US$ 450 equivalent to Rs.29,250/- total amounting to Rs.75,250/-, copy of the said consent letters dated 08.06.2017 are Annexure R-1, R-2 & R-3 respectively, agreed to receive an amount of Rs.75,250/- and later on filed a police complaint which was investigated by Economic Offences Wing (EOW in short), Amritsar, and in which a settlement was arrived between the parties and the complainant compromised the matter and signed a consent letter, Receipt/Compromise, No Dues dated 23.01.2018, copy of which are Annexure R-4 Colly., before the officials of E.O.W., Amritsar and accepted the amount of Rs.75,250/- vide two cheques bearing No. 096306 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and cheque No. 096307 for an amount of Rs.65.250/- both dated 03.02.2018 drawn on Axis Bank, Chandigarh. The copy of the both the cheques are Annexure R-5 & R-6 respectively which have since already been encashed by the complainant on 07.02.2018 towards the full and final settlement of her claim of refund against the opposite parties, the copy of Bank statement showing the encashment of the said cheques is Annexure R-7. Thus, no cause of action survives to the complainant to file the present complaint before this Commission and the present compliant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present consumer complaint before this commission. The complainant had made a promise vide consent letter, receipt/compromise, no dues dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure R-4 Colly) signed by the complainant before the EOW officials, Amritsar and accepted the amount of Rs. 75,250/- towards the full and final settlement of her claim of refund against the opposite parties. Thus, the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is fully applicable in the instant case and the complainant cannot refuse to abide by her promise made by way of consent letter, receipt/compromise, no dues against which her earlier complaint was filed/dismissed after receiving the of refund amount by her. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The present case is liable to be dismissed as the opposite parties had neither been negligent nor deficient in their services. The complainant had retained the services of opposite parties by entering into two Contracts of Engagement dated 16.07.2016, for the purpose of receiving professional consultancy services under Quebec Skilled Worker Category (Mon Project) and another under Federal Processing - Post Provincial selection, copy of the said contracts of engagement are Annexure R-8 & R-9 respectively, and paid an amount of Rs. 90,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 13,500/- which is non-refundable) and Rs.30,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs.4500/- which is non refundable) towards the professional fee of opposite party vide receipts dated 16.07.2016 (Annexure R-10 & R-11). The complainant submitted her case filing documents on 06.08.2016 and subsequently, her case was registered with Quebec authorities, the copy of register portal on the website of the Quebec Authorities is Annexure R-12. Quebec Authorities opened the said program for next intake on 16th August 2016, the copy of the news on the website is Annexure R-13. The opposite parties had tried their level best to file the case of the complainant. However, due to heavy rush of application on website of Quebec Authorities, cases could not be transmitted in the intake, even the other applicants sitting in the Quebec could not submit their immigration cases and meanwhile the maximum number of applications i.e. 5000 applications were received by Quebec authority within 20 minutes from all over the world and as a bad luck of the complainant the Quebec Authority refused to accept more application and the portal was closed, as is clear from the website news of August 2016, copy of same is Annexure R-14. Thereafter, the Quebec Immigration Authorities made some modifications to the weighting of the skilled worker selection grid, particularly with regard to the criteria "area of training" and "education level" on 08.03.2017, the copy of smae is Annexure R-15. As per new grid the complainant was no more eligible for the said Program, as the complainant was not getting eligible points under the new grid, the copy of new grid is Annexure R-16. The complainant was duly informed about the changes in the rules and also the Complainant being affected by the said changes vide email dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure R-17). There was no other alternative but to fetch more marks in "Area of Training" the complainant is required to obtain a diploma in Nursing either Quebec diploma or equivalent to Quebec diploma (Annexure R-16) however, the complainant decided not to continue and voluntarily withdrew her case on 11.05.2017. As such, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties nor there is any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as the opposite parties have no domain over the Quebec Authorities and thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this account alone. There is no deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as the opposite parties as per clause 11 (d)of the contract (Annexure R-8) approved an amount of Rs. 36,000/- and as per goodwill gesture the opposite parties approved an amount of Rs. 10,000/- of the contract (Annexure R-9) and further as per clause 11(d) of contract (Annexure R-18) the compiete amount paid by complainant vide receipt date 22.07.2016 (Annexure R-19) of US $ 450 was approved by M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai which was duly informed to the complainant vide emails dated 25.07.2017 & 04.08.2017 & 27.05.2017 (Annexure R-20, R-21 & R- 22 respectively). Thus, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of change in immigration rules by Quebec Immigration Authority. Once the complainant had retained the services, the opposite parties immediately started providing services from day one, even before the case was filed. Services such as:
(i) Counseling and advising the client about the Immigration Category in which he/she retained the services and the Immigration procedure to be followed.
(ii) Providing the immigration package and the check list of documents while explaining the client in detail about the documents and forms necessary for filing Immigration Application.
(iii) Advising and guiding the client in preparation of documents and forms in proper format as per the requirement of Immigration Authorities etc. Documents such as Experience documents, Education documents etc.
Thus the opposite parties had duly been performing its part of the contract right from the time when the Complainant had retained the services and was duly advised and guided about necessary documents for preparing and filing the case and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties at any point of time and the present complaint needs dismissal. Commission at Amritsar does not have the Jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint as the Complainant has agreed in clause 20 of contracts dated 16.07.2016(Annexure R-8 and R-18) that all the differences and disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Arbitration. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and matter needs to be referred to the arbitration. No assurance was ever made for 100% success rather the modification dated 8.3.2016 (Annexure R-15) was totally unforeseen and the opposite parties has no domain. The complainant as per her own will retained the services of the opposite parties by entering into two contracts of engagement (Annexure R-8 & R-9) after going through the contents of the same and that too without any coercion, undue influence, fraud or mistake and the complainant willfully and knowingly engaged the services of the opposite parties. As per section 23 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 the complainant was never being dominated by the opposite parties while signing the documents and was given enough time to go through the Contract and thereafter, the complainant exercised her free will in signing the contract as:
- Neither the complainant protested before or soon after the contract of agreement
- Nor, the complainant took any step to avoid the contract
- Nor, the complainant pursued or attempted to pursue the excuse that the contract was got signed from him on blank Contract.
- Nor, the complainant conveyed denial of independent advice.
The complainant signed the contracts only after giving her particulars i.e. name, husband's name, address, mobile number etc were mentioned in the contract and after rechecking by the complainant herself, the same were entered into the system of the opposite parties and only thereafter the contract was generated and the complainant who was capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon her interest, being an educated and prudent woman and being of a sound mind signed the said contract with her full consent. The complainant as per the payment plan opted by her paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- only as professional fee to the opposite parties against which two receipts and details of the amount, Service Tax and other taxes was handed over to her. The said amount of Rs.18000/- was paid by the complainant as Service Tax and other taxes and is non-refundable as has gone into State Exchequer Account. Therefore, a concluded contract came into existence between the parties. It was binding on both the parties. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. The Quebec Immigration Authorities made some modifications to weighting of the skilled worker selection grid, particularly with regard to the criteria "area of training" and "education level" on 08.03.2017, (Annexure R-15). As per new grid the complainant was no more eligible for the said Program, as the complainant was not getting eligible points under the new grid (Annexure R-16). The complainant was duly informed about the changes in the rules and also the Complainant being affected by the said changes vide email dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure R-17). There was no other alternative but to fetch more marks in "Area of Training" the complainant is required to obtain a diploma in Nursing either Quebec diploma or equivalent to Quebec diploma (Annexure R-16) however, the complainant decided not to continue and voluntary withdrew her case on 11.05.2017. As such, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties nor there is any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as the opposite parties have no domain over the Quebec Authorities and thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this account alone. The complainant is concocting false stories to mislead this Commission. the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the principle of Promissory Estoppel as the complainant vide consent letters for an amount of Rs.36,000/-, Rs.10,000/- & US $ 450 equivalent to Rs.29,250/- total amounting to Rs.75,250/-, copy of the said consent letters dated 08.06.2017 (Annexure R-1, R-2 & R-3 respectively), agreed to receive an amount of Rs.75,250/- and later on filed a police complaint which was investigated by Economic Offences Wing (EOW in short), Amritsar, and in which a settlement was arrived between the parties and the complainant compromised the matter and signed a consent letter, Receipt/Compromise, No Dues dated 23.01.2018(Annexure R-4 Colly) before the officials of E.O.W., Amritsar and accepted the amount of Rs.75,250/- vide two cheques bearing No. 096306 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and cheque No. 096307 for an amount of Rs.65,250/- both dated 03.02.2018 drawn on Axis Bank, Chandigarh, the copy of the both the cheques (Annexure R-5 & R-6 respectively) which have since already been encashed by the complainant on 07.02.2018 towards the full and final settlement of her claim of refund against the opposite parties, the copy of Bank statement showing the encashment of the said cheques (Annexure R-7). Thus, no cause of action survives to the complainant to file the present complaint before this commission and the present compliant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. And opposite parties has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complaint and opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record.
4 Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that induced/lured by big dreams shown by OPs through the Ads of OP.S on TV & others sources, the complainant was enticed to provide services for PR/Visa for herself & her family comprising of herself, her husband & one daughter (at the time of application) now 2nd daughter also, for the country Canada. The complainant was the main applicant. The contract was executed under Quebec Skilled Worker category in Canada for the job of GNM after the OPS assessed the entire merit by calculating points which as per their own calculations, worked out to be 60 which they said that the requirement of points for PR is 57 and the C was assured sure shot success i.e. 100% success on the basis of qualification age experience, kids, spouse age, IELTS, 1 baby, funds etc, leaving no doubt in the mind of complainant. Ld. Counsel for complainant further contended that after thoroughly examining the profile of the complainant, the opposite parties assured that information supplied by the complainant is perfect. Since the complainant is rendering good services in the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Punjab. The O.Ps got so many documents signed on dotted lines without explaining the entire contents contained in voluminous drafts of contracts which are fully unilateral. Signing on dotted lines means compulsion where consumer has no option. When the complainant was fully assured and satisfied about the success of the case; deposited Rs. 1,38,000/- (Rs. One lac thirty eight thousand only) vide cheque No.967191 and Rs. 31890/- (Rs. Thirty one thousand eight hundred ninety only) vide cheque No. 967193 of PNB, both dated 16th July, 2016 cheques and these cheques were credited to the account of OPs. The OPs assessed and examined the profile of the complainant who is a qualified Nurse, registered with Punjab, Nurses Registration Council after having taken course of Study at SGTB Hospital, Amritsar. Ld. Counsel further stated that after examining the funds/salaries the case of the complainant was processed. After processing the case was forwarded to the immigration authorities where the objections were raised which the opposite parties failed either to foresee or failed to clarify their stand and failed miserably to get the PR visa approved leaving the dreams of the Complainant. Now the question arises whether O.Ps had little expertise to examine the merit of the case have no good workers/ employees qualified enough to scrutinize the case in the true sense as well as letter and spirit and causing lot of inconvenience to the public at large. The O.Ps. have thus resorted to unfair trade practice by minting lots of money from the complainant and other people and not to refund full amount without caring for the promises made by them to the complainant and general public. Ld. Counsel further contended that the opposite parties started denying on ground that norms of Canadian Embassy changed and now the desire diploma in nursing for P.R while at the time of settlement there was no such terms or conditions. Undersigned and her husband approached the opposite parties but all-in vain. Application was also moved to commissioner of police Amritsar dt. 19.11.2017 diary No. 44870 CD1. The O.Ps issued Cheque No. 963006 for Rs.10000 and Cheque no. 96307 for Rs. 65250/- of Axis Bank in my favor as part payment of refund as such total complete amount out of Rs. 1,69,890/-received by O.Ps. from complainant which is refundable. Inspite of repeated request of complainant, the O.Ps have not refunded that whole amount and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
5 Ld. Counsel for the opposite party contended that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the principle of Promissory Estoppel as the complainant vide consent letters for an amount of Rs.36,000/-, Rs.10,000/- & US$ 450 equivalent to Rs.29,250/- total amounting to Rs.75,250/-, copy of the said consent letters dated 08.06.2017 are Annexure R-1, R-2 & R-3 respectively, agreed to receive an amount of Rs.75,250/- and later on filed a police complaint which was investigated by Economic Offences Wing (EOW in short), Amritsar, and in which a settlement was arrived between the parties and the complainant compromised the matter and signed a consent letter, Receipt/Compromise, No Dues dated 23.01.2018, copy of which are Annexure R-4 Colly., before the officials of E.O.W., Amritsar and accepted the amount of Rs.75,250/- vide two cheques bearing No. 096306 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and cheque No. 096307 for an amount of Rs.65.250/- both dated 03.02.2018 drawn on Axis Bank, Chandigarh. The copy of the both the cheques are Annexure R-5 & R-6 respectively which have since already been encashed by the complainant on 07.02.2018 towards the full and final settlement of her claim of refund against the opposite parties, the copy of Bank statement showing the encashment of the said cheques is Annexure R-7. Thus, no cause of action survives to the complainant to file the present complaint before this Commission and the present compliant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present consumer complaint before this commission. The complainant had made a promise vide consent letter, receipt/compromise, no dues dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure R-4 Colly) signed by the complainant before the EOW officials, Amritsar and accepted the amount of Rs. 75,250/- towards the full and final settlement of her claim of refund against the opposite parties. Ld. Counsel for opposite party further contended that the complainant submitted her case by filing on 06.08.2016 and subsequently, her case was registered with Quebec authorities, the copy of register portal on the website of the Quebec Authorities is Annexure R-12. Quebec Authorities opened the said program for next intake on 16th August 2016, the copy of the news on the website is Annexure R-13. The opposite parties had tried their level best to file the case of the complainant. However, due to heavy rush of application on website of Quebec Authorities, cases could not be transmitted in the intake, even the other applicants sitting in the Quebec could not submit their immigration cases and meanwhile the maximum number of applications i.e. 5000 applications were received by Quebec authority within 20 minutes from all over the world and as a bad luck of the complainant the Quebec Authority refused to accept more application and the portal was closed, as is clear from the website news of August 2016, copy of same is Annexure R-14. Thereafter, the Quebec Immigration Authorities made some modifications to the weighting of the skilled worker selection grid, particularly with regard to the criteria "area of training" and "education level" on 08.03.2017, the copy of smae is Annexure R-15. As per new grid the complainant was no more eligible for the said Program, as the complainant was not getting eligible points under the new grid, the copy of new grid is Annexure R-16. The complainant was duly informed about the changes in the rules and also the Complainant being affected by the said changes vide email dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure R-17). There was no other alternative but to fetch more marks in "Area of Training" the complainant is required to obtain a diploma in Nursing either Quebec diploma or equivalent to Quebec diploma (Annexure R-16) however, the complainant decided not to continue and voluntary withdrew her case on 11.05.2017. As such, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties nor there is any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as the opposite parties have no domain over the Quebec Authorities and thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this account alone. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party further contended that complainant exercised her will in signing the contract as:
- Neither the complainant protested before or soon after the contract of agreement
- Nor, the complainant took any step to avoid the contract
- Nor, the complainant pursued or attempted to pursue the excuse that the contract was got signed from him on blank Contract.
- Nor, the complainant conveyed denial of independent advice.
and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
6 The combined and harmonious reading of documents and pleadings is going to prove on record that the complainant has availed the services of the opposite parties for PR/ Visa for herself and her family for the country Canada, in which the complainant was the main applicant. The opposite parties assured that as she is the staff nurse and employee in Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Punjab and as she is the qualified nurse, as such, she is eligible to get the PR/ Visa for Canada. Various documents were asked to be signed by the complainant at the time of applying the Visa / PR. But her application form was not submitted by the opposite party, as such she was denied the Visa and in the meanwhile the conditions for getting the Visa / PR were changed because the Quebec Immigration Authorities made some modifications to the weighting of the skilled worker selection grid, particularly with regard to the criteria "area of training" and "education level" on 08.03.2017. As per the new grid, the complainant was not eligible for the said program as the complainant was not getting eligible points under the new grid and thereafter, the complainant decided not to continue voluntarily and withdrew her case on 11.5.2017.
7 It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is asking for the full remit of amount which she has paid to the opposite parties. But as per the opposite parties, the complainant is not eligible for the full refund because when the opposite party approached the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar for the intervention and refund of money, the opposite parties issued two cheques for total amount of Rs. 75,250/-, as such, the complainant is not eligible to receive the further remaining amount, as she had signed the consent letter dated 8.6.2017 and she cannot file the present complaint for remaining amount, as she has signed the content letter with her free will and wish. But we are not agreed with the opposite party. Because in the present complaint, the opposite parties have themselves admitted that due to heavy rush of application of website of Quebec Authorities cases could not be transmitted in the intake, even the other applicants sitting in the Quebec could not submit their immigration cases and meanwhile, the maximum number of applications i.e. 5000 applications were received by Quebec Authority within 20 minute from all over the world and as a bad luck of the complainant the Quebec authority refused to accept more applications and the portal was closed. Thereafter the Quebec Immigration Authorities made some modifications to the weighting of the skilled worker selection grid, particularly with regard to the criteria "area of training" and "education level" on 08.03.2017 as such the complainant was no more eligible for the Visa/ PR for Canada. This is the admission made by the opposite parties it seems that there is some lapse on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant has suffered an irreparable loss because after this, the Quebec Immigration authority has changed the criteria for getting the Visa. As such, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has further stated that the complainant is not eligible to receive the remaining amount as she has signed the consent letter. But we are not agreed with the stand of the opposite party because complainant was at the receiving end and she was under the compulsion considering something is better than nothing but she is entitled for the remaining amount also. Because, the opposite party has admitted that due to heavy rush the application of the complainant was not processed/ transmitted. As such, the complainant has suffered an irreparable loss. In this regard, our apex court in various Judgments held that merely because the complainant has issued no due certificate and if there is no claim, the court cannot reject the same on the ground of issuance of No Due Certificate. Reliance has been placed on Noor Ali Vs National Insurance Company in Civil appeal No. 5547/2009 on the basis of civil appeals, the State Commission for Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi has held that the amount received under protest and more out of compulsion, the complainants are not stopped from arising issue of additional demand. It was held that such compulsion being the necessity than choice. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Commission, New Delhi in the matter of Singhrieddy Ramana Murthy Vs M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. 2002 NCJ 555 (NC) and similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held which is based on Maxim “Necessit as non habet” which means “necessity knows no law”. A person may sometimes have to succumb to the pressure of other party to the bargain is in a stronger position. As such, the acceptance of part payment by the complainant of Rs. 75,000/- was out of force and compulsion for the fear of losing this amount even.
8 However, the opposite party has relied upon Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Vs Gagandeep Singh Monga in Revision petition No. 3612 of 2014 of national Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in which it was held that the consumer complaint itself is not maintainable because the settlement has been reached between the parties, but in the present complaint the opposite parties have admitted themselves that due to heavy rush of application on website of Quebec Authorities, cases could not be transmitted in the intake, as such, the complainant was not able to get the PR/ Visa for Canada and after this, the Quebec Immigration Authorities made some modifications to the weighing of the skilled workers selection grid and due to this the complainant was not able to get the PR/ Visa forever. This act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
9 In view of above discussion we allow the present complaint and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 94640/- to the complainant as balance payment. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties unnecessarily for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 7,500/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
14.11.2024
