DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 314 of 24.12.2015
Decided on: 30.11.2016
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur wife of Sh.Surjeet Singh resident of H.No.96, Sector 10, HUDA, Ambala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services, SCO 11 First Floor, Leela Bhawan, Patiala District Patiala.
…………Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Sh.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
counsel for Opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt.Jawinder Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.)
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of October, 2004, she approached the OP for the immigration of herself and her family members to Canada. O.P. assured her that she will get visa if she shows that she has property of worth of Rs.1 Crore. On the assurance of given by the O.P., she deposited an amount of Rs.36,200/- on 27.7.2005, Rs.20,656/- on 23.8.2005, Rs.40,068 on 23.8.2005,Rs.35,000/- on 27.1.2005,Rs.20,000/- on 20.8.2005,Rs.36,200/- on 7.6.2005 and 1350 $ on 25.8.2015, i.e. totaling Rs.2,77,000/- with the OP. The OP also assured her that after the deposit of the amount, she and her family will go to Canada within 4 months. She also sent calculation of her property and funds to the O.P. .On 20.8.2005, she received a letter to the effect that after 42 months, she alongwith her family members will go to Canada but after passing of 42 months, the OP could not sent her and her family to Canada. In the year,2014, the OP assured that she and her family can go to Canada in the month of May,2015 but the OP backed out from their promise. Finding no reason, she requested the OP for the payment of the amount, deposited by her, but the OP flatly refused to do so. She also got served the O.P. with the legal notice, in response to which the O.P. gave vague reply. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. and prayed that to direct the O.P. to return a sum of Rs.15 Lacs and Rs.2,77,00/- paid by the complainant along with Rs.11,000/- as costs of the legal notice along with interest @ 18% per annum on account of harassment, pains and agonies caused to the complainant due to the fact and conduct of the opposite party and to grant any other relief (s) as may be deemed fit under the circumstances of the matter in question, received by the O.P. from the complainant.
3. On being put to notice, O.P. appeared and filed its written version taking preliminary objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. On merits , it is admitted that the complainant attained the services of the O.P. for filing her case under business category for immigration to Canada under Self Employed Farmer Category and entered into a contract of engagement and also paid Rs.55,000/- alongwith Rs.36200/- as visa processing fee, to it. The complainant also paid US $ 1350 to M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy vide draft dated 25.8.2005. The case of the complainant was duly filed on 2.7.2015 before the Canadian Authorities .The complainant allotted file number vide letter dated 20.8.2005. Vide letter dated 19.2.2015,it was informed to the complainant that her personal interview was scheduled by the Canadian High Commission on 19.3.2015 at 10:00 at the Canadian High Commission 7/8 Shantipath, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Several telephonic calls were made to her in this regard. A registered letter dated 26.2.2015 was also written to the complainant for attending the interview, but the complainant failed to attend the interview and consequently vide letter dated 24.4.2015, her case was rejected by the Canadian High Commission. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on its part as it has performed its part of the contract by getting the interview letter for the complainant from the Canadian High Commission. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of her complainant, she tendered in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit alongwith documents, Exs.C1 to C11 and closed the evidence.
On the contrary, the Ld. counsel for the O.P. tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj, Authorized representative of O.P., alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of contract of engagement dated 27.1.2005, Ex.OP2 copy of application dated 2.7.2005 regarding the filing of the case , Ex.OP3, copy of acknowledgment from Canadian authorities, Ex.OP4, copy of letter dated 19.2.2015, Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 26.2.2015, Ex.OP6, copy of postal receipt, Ex.OP7, copy of rejection letter dated 24.4.2015, Ex.OP8, copy of contract of agreement with Global Strategic Business Consultancy,Ex.OP9, copy of receipt dated 31.1.2005, Ex.OP10, copy of receipt,Ex.OP11, copy of demand draft, Ex.OP12, copy of draft dated 25.8.2005, Ex.OP13, copy of legal notice, Ex.OP13, copy of reply to the legal notice and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments filed by the parties and the record of the case, carefully.
6. The first question which falls for consideration is as to whether O.P. informed the complainant regarding her interview before the Canadian High Commission.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the O.P. submitted that complainant hired the services of the O.P., for filing her case under Business category for immigration to Canada under Self Employed Farmer Category. The case of complainant was duly filed before the Canadian Authorities by it. Vide letter dated 19.2.2015, the Canadian Authority called the complainant for her personal interview on 19.3.2015 at 10:00, at Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. After receipt of the said letter, several calls were made to the complainant on the telephone number provided by her, to inform her about the date and time of the interview before the Canadian High Commission but her telephone was not working/ switched off. The O.P. also sent a letter dated 26.2.2015, to the complainant through registered post at her residential address at village Tajalpur, District Patiala, which was duly served but the complainant failed to attend the interview on the stipulated date, as a result of which her case was rejected by the Canadian High Commission. Thus, for her own wrong, she cannot blame the O.P. Therefore, the complaint filed by her is liable to be dismissed.
On the contrary, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that since 2008, complainant is residing at House No.96, Sector 10, HUDA, Ambala city and the OP was well aware of her said address, then why the O.P. has sent the interview letter at her old address. He further submitted that in reply to the legal notice, the O.P. has stated that a registered envelop containing interview letter was sent to the complainant at village Tajalpur. P.O. Mesengen, District Patiala on 2.3.2015, which was received back undelivered by it, whereas in the written version filed before this Forum, it has been stated that the registered letter sent at village Tajalpur, was duly received by the complainant, which proves that the O.P. has never sent any letter to inform her about the date of interview. As the O.P. has not informed the complainant regarding the date of interview, so she could not attend the interview, therefore, she is certainly entitled to get the refund of the amount of Rs.2,77,000/- paid by her in the year 2005 along with interest. She is also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation expenses. Due to negligent act of the O.P., she suffered huge financial loss and undergone mental agony and physical harassment. Therefore, O.P. be directed to compensate her as prayed for in the complaint.
In the reply dated 17.6.2015 filed against the legal notice got issued by the complainant, the O.P. has taken a stand that a registered letter was sent to her at village Tajalpur. P.O. Mesengen, District Patiala, on 2.3.2015 and the said registered letter was received back un-delivered, whereas in the written version filed before this Forum, has taken a stand that a registered letter sent at village Tajalpur, P.O. Mesengen, District Patiala, was duly received by the complainant. However, the O.P. has neither placed on record any copy of the envelop, received back un-delivered nor has placed on record any document/receipt to show that the letter has duly been received by the complainant. Thus, in the absence of documentary proof, it can not be believed that the O.P. has either received back the registered letter sent to the complainant on 2.3.2015 or the complainant has received the letter dated 26.2.2015. Taking these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that the O.P. has failed to prove that it had informed the complainant regarding her interview, which was scheduled on 19.3.2015 at 10:00 before the Canadian High Commission. Thus, we do not hesitate to conclude that the O.P. is deficient in providing the services and complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount paid by her.
7. The second question which falls for consideration is as to whether the O.P.is liable to refund the amount to the complainant as prayed for in the complaint.
The complainant in support of her version that she had paid in total a sum of Rs.2,77,000/- to the O.P has tendered some documents in her evidence. From the receipts dated 23.8.2005, Ex.C1 & Ex.C2, for an amount of Rs.20,686/- and Rs.40,068/- respectively, issued by Punjab National Bank. However, from the said receipts no inference can be drawn that actually complainant had paid the said amount to the O.P. only. From the copy of Demand Draft dated 27.1.2005, it is evident that complainant paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the O.P. From the copy of receipt dated 23.8.2005, it is apparent that complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the O.P. as such, it is proved that complainant paid in total a sum of Rs.55,000/- (Rs.35,000/- + Rs.20,000/-) to the O.P. From the copy of account payee cheque, it is clear that the complainant paid 1350 US $ to the Global Strategic Business Consultancy. Further from the copy of Demand draft dated 7.6.2005, it is evident that an amount of Rs.36,200/- was paid to the Canadian High Commission, as processing fee.
8. The learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the O.P. and it had already rendered all the required services to the complainant. She had paid 1350 US $ to M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai and had paid Rs.36,200/- as processing fee to the Canadian High Commission, as such, the complainant cannot claim the refund of the amount, which she has paid to them. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant entered into a contract with the WWICS. Complainant was not aware of the existence of M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai and on the asking of the O.P., she entered into a contract with the said M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai, and paid a 1350 US $ to it. The M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai, is nothing but a front company of O.P. Therefore, she is legally entitled to get the refund of the said amount, which she paid to the said M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai. He further submitted that due to fault/negligence of the O.P., complainant could not attend the interview and the Canadian High Commission, has rejected her case, thus, she is entitled to claim the amount of Rs.36,200/- (processing fee) from the O.P. only.
9. It may be stated that in the case of M/s WWICS Vs Gurjinder Singh, Jabali – R.P. No.2557/2012, decided on 7.2.2013, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission, while referring to the decision, in World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited Vs Manohar Singh Randhawa, has been held that the entire payment made by the complainant in those cases, whether, to the Immigration Agency or to the GSBC, is against the same very contract, under which the Immigration Agency had undertaken to render services to the complainant in that case. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble National Commission, in another order dated 23.1.2014, in Aditya Kumar Vs Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited- R.P. No.3830/2012. Even in revision petition No.1820 of 2015, filed by the WWICS, against the order dated 4.6.2015, in appeal No.81 of 2015, of State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission, vide its order dated 31.3.2016.
10. In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the cases referred above, the O.P. is thus, liable to refund the amount, which the complainant paid to it and also to the Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai, also. Since, it has already been established that O.P. is deficient in providing services, to the complainant, therefore, it is also liable to pay Rs.36,200/- i.e. the processing fee to the complainant. The complainant has not stated the detail as to how he is entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, therefore, prayer made for refund of the said amount cannot be accepted.
11. For the reasons stated above, we allow the complaint partly and direct the O.P. in the following manner
- To refund Rs.81,200/- (Rs.55,000/- + Rs.36,200/-) and amount equivalent to 1350 US $ along with @ 9% P.A. from the respective dates of deposit
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation
- To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
The order be complied by the O.P. within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules .Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:30.11.2016 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
