Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/234

Sisir Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Worldwide Immigration - Opp.Party(s)

J.B.Khanna Adv.

18 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 234 of 27.03.2017

Date of Decision            :   18.02.2021

 

1.Sisir Paul Sharma son of Shri R.P.Sharma, resident of House No.263, Purani Sarai, Khanna, District Ludhiana.

2.Sonia Sharma wife of Sisir Paul Sharma, resident of House No.263, Purani Sarai, Khanna, District Ludhiana and now r/o House No.5, Khurla Kingra, Phase-2, Near Tower Enclave, Jalandhar through her attorney Sisir Paul Sharma(complainant no.1).

 

….. Complainants

                                                         Versus

 

1.Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its Head Office at SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh-160022 through its Manager/authorized signatory.

2.Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited (WWICS), having its Branch Office at Khanna through its Manager/authorized signatory.

Opposite parties

 

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

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Jagat Bhushan Khanna, Advocate 

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

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainants is that they were willing to settle in Canada on permanent basis. Complainants approached the OPs who provide immigration consultancy services for different countries including Canada. After checking the documents of the complainants, the OPs assured that the complainants had a good case for settlement in Canada on permanent basis. The OPs further promised that in case the case of the complainants is rejected by the Embassy due to any cause, the entire amount would be refunded. Relying upon the assurance of the OPs, the complainants handed over the documents to the OPs. The complainants also paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide receipt No.3387 dated 24.07.2006, Rs.15,000/- vide receipt No.3491 dated 29.7.2006 and Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.5709 dated 12.09.2006. The complainants also paid 1200 USD to M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy on 06.09.2006 vide DD No.136338 of HDFC Bank Limited, Khanna payable on JPMORGAN CHASE Bank New York. However, the case of the complainants was rejected by the Canadian High Commission/Embassy. As a result, the complainants made an application dated 16.8.2016 for the refund of 1200 USD as well as Rs.50,000/- deposited by them against the above said receipts. However the OPs instead of refunding the money started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 21.09.2016, the OP2 informed complainant no.2 that the refund of 500 USD has been approved by the OPs as a special case. However the complainants filed another application with the OPs to refund 1200 USD and Rs.50,000/- but till date they have failed to refund the money to the complainants. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund 1200 USD and Rs.50,000/- with interest @18% per annum and a compensation of Rs.1 lac for causing harassment, mental pain and agony.

2.               The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement several preliminary objections have been raised against the complaint on the ground that the complaint is time barred. The case of the complainants was rejected by the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 24.05.2013 and the complainants was immediately informed thereafter and an amount of Rs.64,252.34P as Visa Processing Fee was refunded by the Canadian High Commission which was also received by the complainant no.2 on 06.09.2013. The complaint could be filed within a period of two years from 06.09.2013 only. It has further pleaded that case of the complainants was rejected due to change in immigration rules by the Canadian Authority which took place after filing of the case by the complainants. Therefore,the matter was beyond the control of the Ops. Moreover, the complainants had availed the services of OPs under Federal Skilled Worker Category by executing a contract of engagement dated 19.07.2006 with regard to preparation, submission and processing of the immigration case on behalf of the complainants for which they paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide two receipts dated 24.07.2006. The case of the complainants was duly prepared and filed in the best possible manner before the Canadian High Commission on 29.07.2006. The complainant was allotted a file number by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada vide letter dated 18.09.2006. Thereafter, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the OPs vide receipt dated 12.09.2006 towards the file number received from the concerned authority. In all, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the OPs who rendered all the services which the complainants were entitled to. It was a matter of bad luck of the complainants that the Canadian Government introduced a new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act which became law on 29.06.2012, under which all the applications made before 27.02.2008 were terminated by the operation of law as per letter dated 24.05.2013 sent by Citizenship and Immigration Canada informed the complainants through the OPs about the change in law. As the application of the complainants was received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada on 18.09.2006, the case of the complainants was also affected by the new legislation and was thus terminated by the operation of law. In the given circumstances, according to the OPs, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that the complainants had entered into another contract namely M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai, for which, they paid an amount of Rs.1200 USD to the said company vide a Demand Draft dated 06.09.2006. The complainants had directly paid the said amount to the company, therefore, they could not claim the refund of 1200 USD from the OPs which was, in fact, paid to the M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai on account of professional services availed by them. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainants submitted affidavit Ex.CA of Sh.Sisir Paul Sharma, attorney of complainant no.2 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

4.                On the other hand, the OPs submitted affidavit Ex.R1 of Mr.Rajiv Bajaj, Authorized Representative of OPs along with documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP10.

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

6.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainants has contended that the complainants availed the services of OPs in seeking immigration of Canada on permanent basis and in this regard, they paid the professional fee of Rs.50,000/- to the OPs. Counsel for the complainants has further argued that the OPs had assured the complainants that they would get the complainants necessary Visa on permanent basis but the case of the complainants was rejected. As promised by the Ops, they were liable to refund the fee and other charges paid by the complainants to them. Counsel for the complainants has further contended that the complaint is within the period of limitation as the complainants received the refund of 500 USD only on 25.06.2016.

7.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has argued that the professional fee charged by the OPs for preparing and submission of immigration case of the complainants was not refundable as per the terms and conditions settled between the parties. Counsel for the OPs has further contended that the case of the complainants for immigration for Canada was rejected due to certain changes in the law of the said country which cannot be attributed to the OPs. Therefore, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs nor any such deficiency or negligence has been attributed to the OPs in the complaint. Therefore, the OPs cannot be held liable to refund the fee charged by them for rendering professional services to the complainants.

8.                We have weighed the contentions raised by counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

9.                It has been claimed by the Ops in the written statement that at the time when the complainants agreed to avail the services of the OPs for their immigration to Canada, the OPs had promised that in case the case was rejected by the Embassy due to any cause, the entire amount paid to the OPs would be refunded. However, the OPs have placed on record a copy of Contract of Engagement Ex.OP3 in which it is specifically mentioned in para no.10 that the services provided by the company being professional in nature and the entire fee is non-refundable. Clause-10 of the contract further provides that partial refund of the fee would be considered if the client is declared disqualified in skill assessment for Australia. The Contract of Engagement Ex.OP3 is duly signed by the complainant no.2 on every page. Therefore it cannot be said that the fee paid to the OPs on account of professional charges was refundable. The clause relating to partial refund can also not be invoked by the complainants as the same is applicable only in case of immigration to Australia and that too if the client is declared disqualified in skill assessment for Australia which is not the case in the context of the complainants.

10.              Now the question arises as to whether there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In this regard, the OPs have relied upon a letter Ex.OP1 vide which the case of the complainants was rejected. In the letter Ex.OP1 the reasons mentioned for the rejection of immigration case of the complainants are being reproduced as under:-

‘The Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act became law on June 29, 2012. Under this legislation, Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) applications made before February 27, 2008, were terminated by operation of law if a selection decision had not been made by an immigration officer before March 29, 2012.

You have been affected by this provision and your application is one which has been terminated by law. The immigration processing fee(s) paid for your permanent residence application and, if applicable, any Right of Permanent Residence FEE(RPRF), formerly called the Right of Landing Fee (ROLF), paid for your permanent residence application, must be returned to you by law.’

11.              A perusal of letter Ex.OP1 and reasons mentioned therein clearly reveals that the application of the complainants was rejected due to amendments in the law of Canada which came into force on 29 June, 2012 whereas the case of the complainants was submitted in the year 2006. In the letter Ex.OP1 there is no reference or mention that there was any shortcoming or deficiency in the application for immigration submitted by the complainants nor any other evidence has been brought on record by the complainants that their case was rejected on account of some error or deficiency of service attributable to the OPs while submitting the application for immigration with the Embassy of Canada. Thus, it is evident on record that the case of the complainants was rejected due to certain changes in the law, which took place in the year 2012 and not anything owing to the OPs. Therefore the OPs cannot be held liable for the refund of professional fee charged by them from the complainants.

12.              As regard the refund of 1200 USD, it is admitted case of the complainants as stated in para no.3 of the complaint, that the said amount was paid to M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy by way of demand draft No.136338 dated 6.9.2006. It is not the case of the complainants that M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy is in any manner associated with the OPs. In the written statement, it has been specifically claimed by the OPs that the OPs have nothing to do with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy and the amount paid to M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai cannot be claimed from the OPs. Strangely enough M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy has not made a party in this case. Since the amount was admittedly paid to the said company/firm, the same cannot be claimed from the OPs, therefore, so far as the claim of refund of 1200 USD is concerned, the same is also not sustainable against the OPs.

13.              As a result of the above observation, it is held that since the complainants have failed to prove the factum of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complaint is liable to fail and the same is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view, the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

14.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

15.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jyotsna Thatai)                                     (K.K.Kareer)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:18.02.2021

Gurpreet Sharma.