BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.369 of 2016
Date of Instt. 26.08.2016
Date of Decision: 26.09.2017
Archana Sood Aged 32 years d/o Shri Dvinder Kumar R/o Sood Niketan, Geeta Nagar, 100-B, Hoshiarpur.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd, South East Asia Operation, A-12, Industrial Area Phase-VI, Mohali- 160055-Punjab India, through its Branch Manager.
2. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd, Midland Building 3rd Floor, Opp. Kings Hotel, Jalandhar, through its Manager Mr. Aseem.
3. Mr. Aseem Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd, Midland Building 3rd Floor, Opp. Kings Hotel, Jalandhar,
4. Mandeep Chauhan
5. Varun Kochhar
Both Agents of WWICS Group, Jalandhar c/o Midland Building, 3rd Floor, Opp. Kings Hotel, Jalandhar.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Gaurav Bangar, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. GPS Rana, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 5.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant was willing to go abroad i.e. Australia and the OPs assured the complainant that the office of the OPs will arrange for PR of the complainant. The OPs No.4 and 5 in the month of November, 2015, received a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant at Hoshiarpur and Rs.75,000/- and Rs.2600/- respectively at Jalandhar, by way of playing fraud with the complainant while giving assurance that they are competent to arrange for PR with further assurance that this will be done on or before June, 2016, the total amount received by the OPs comes to Rs.1,02,600/-, which were received in November, 2015 against valid receipts. The OPs gave file number generate 91973, thereafter, the OPs again demanded the fee of Advocate in the foreign country amounting to 700 US Dollars, which were equivalent to Rs.45,500/- and in lieu of that assurance to do the needful till March, 2016, but nothing was done by the OPs except of giving file number. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs on several occasions either to arrange for the PR or to return the amount, received by them with the assurance to arrange for PR of Australia. The OPs neither returned back the amount nor arranged for the PR, for which the commitment was made. The complainant approached the office of the OPs individually also but all the members put it of from the one pretext to the other and ultimately started giving threats to the complainant that they will involve the complainant in a false case as they are high professional persons and have approach in the police as well as in the administration. This fact duly proved as the complainant filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar. The complainant visited the police officials on several occasions but none of them respond to take any action against the OPs. The complainant belongs to the poor family and the parents of the complainant have arranged the money to set the future of the complainant but the OPs by way of playing fraud with the complainant gave mental shock and agony to the complainant, who lost her mental set of mind and is unable to perform her daily duties.
2. That notice served by the complainant was not replied by the OPs and as such the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and necessary directions may be passed to the OPs to hope to pay the entire amount of Rs.1,02,600/-, which was paid by the complainant against receipts and further be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, by future loss and also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and OPs be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation expenses and also pay interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly all the OPs appeared and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present case is a case of voluntary withdrawal, non co-operation and disinterest by the complainant, as is evident from the letter dated 19.03.2016 and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had retained the professional services of the answering OPs by entering into a Contract of Engagement dated 28.11.2015 with respect to preparation and submission of documents to its associated company/Global Strategic Business Consultancy, who was to process complainant's immigration case under State Territory Nominated Independent program. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.90,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs.12,600/-), vide receipts dated 03.11.2015 and 28.11.2015. As per Clause 2(a) of the contract dated 28.11.2015, the complainant was required to submit her complete case filing documents with respondents within 30 days from the date of signing of all contract for getting her credentials assessed from the concerned authority, however complainant failed to comply with such terms of the contract as she submitted her documents on 27.02.2016. Although, the complainant herself had delayed the process by not submitting the documents in prescribed time period, the OPs still analyzed the same and informed the complainant regarding the deficiency in documents submitted by complainant, vide email dated 03.03.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant never replied to the above said e-mail of the OPs and as such, case of the complainant could not be processed further due to negligence on the part of the complainant herself. Thereafter, the complainant voluntarily withdraw the entire process of her immigration case by demanding refund and showing disinterest through her letter dated 19.03.2016. Since, the complainant herself had withdrawn her case, she is not entitled to claim any refund in view of Clause 12 (1) (2) (5). There was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the answering OPs and further alleged that the complainant had entered into contract with M/s GSBC, Dubai on 28.11.2015 for the purpose of getting PR under State Territory Nominated Independent Program. The complainant was required to pay an amount of US $700 for availing the services of the said company under contract dated 28.11.2015, however, the complainant failed to comply with the same. According to Clause 6 of the said contract, if the client does not clear the outstanding due to the company, it shall be considered breach of the agreement and in such case, company shall have the right to stop providing services to the client. It is pertinent to mention here that role of answering OPs was limited to preparation and submission of complainant's documents to GSBC, Dubai and for them to take things further with the immigration authorities. Since the complainant failed to clear the dues of the associated company, GSBC did not proceed further with the complainant's case and as such the complainant herself is at fault. The OPs are still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract provided the complainant agreed to co-operate with respondents and clear the outstanding dues towards the associated company and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that as per Contract dated 28.11.2015, it was agreed between the parties that the services provided by the respondents being professional in nature, the entire fee is non refundable. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim the amount of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.12,600/- as she had herself withdrawn her case and there is no deficiency on the part of the respondent, who are still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and further submitted that all the differences and disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Arbitration and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant entered into an agreement to get a PR from the OPs and for that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,02,600/- and the plea taken by the OPs is only that the complainant herself failed to provide all the documents and due to that reason, the case of the complainant could not be processed and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs rather it is a fault on the part of the complainant and further on merits, the averments made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith some documents Ex. OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/6 and then closed the evidence of the OPs.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. It has emerged from the respective pleadings of the parties that the complainant approached to the OPs for PR of Australia and for that purpose, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,02,600/- and also paid 700 US $, which are equivalent to Rs.45,500/- and further OPs gave assurance to the complainant that everything will be done till March,2016 but nothing was done by the OPs.
8. On the other hand, the OPs alleged that the complainant herself failed to submit required documents within a stipulated period of 30 days, from the date of signing of the said contract but the complainant herself failed to submit these documents and delay has been caused in process just for not submitting the documents within the prescribed period, even an email was also sent to the complainant for submitting of documents, which is Ex.OP1/4 and as such there is a fault on the part of the complainant.
9. We find that the plea taken by the OP that the documents were not submitted by the complainant well within time but we do not agree with this plea of the OP because if the payment of such a huge amount has been received from the complainant, then why the documents were not demanded at the time of making payment, why the only fee amount was received by the OP, this factor itself established that there is some hanky panky on the part of the OPs and they have not processed the case of the complainant except informing the generated No.91973 and further as per the version of the OPs that the complainant has withdrawn her case, vide application Ex.OP1/1, if the complainant had chosen to withdraw her case and accordingly submitted an application to the OPs, then the OPs are required to return the fee amount to the complainant but for the best known reason, the OPs have failed to refund the said amount rather alleging that as per the agreement Ex.OP1/5, the amount is not returned but if, we go through the Clause No.11, under the heading “Refund” of the said agreement Ex.OP1/2 but there is one note given under the said heading, wherein recited that non submission of documents do not cover under the aforesaid provision of Clause 11 and as such, we come to the conclusion that the case of the complainant was not processed by the OPs for getting a PR of Australia, if case is processed within a reasonable period and thereafter any objection raised by the Australia Embassy, then question might be of a different way but in this complaint, it is established that the case of the complainant was not processed by the OPs despite taking a huge amount of fee i.e. Rs.1,02,600/- and as such, we find there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly reach to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the total amount of fee Rs.1,02,600/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as a compensation for mental harassment to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
26.09.2017 Member President
