Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/222/2015

Deepak Kainth - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS Global Resettlement Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Nitesh Singhi & Priya Singhi, Adv.

08 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	222 of 2015
Date of Institution	09.09.2015
Date of Decision	08.10.2015

 

Deepak Kainth s/o Vishba Mit, R/o # 67, Top Floor, Phase-10, Mohali, now at #803, Ground Floor, Phase 10, Mohali, Tehsil & Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

1]  WWICS, Global Resettlement Solutions, SCO 2415-16, 1st Floor, Near Aroma Hotel, Sec.22-C, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

 2]  WWICS Global Resettlement Solutions, South East Asia Operations, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali through its authorised signatory.

 3]  Ms.Mandeep Sidhu, Executive of WWICS, Global Resettlement Solutions, SCO 2415-16, 1st Floor, Near Aroma Hotel, Sec. 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                        …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Raman Walia, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.06.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.544 of 2014, filed by the complainant, with the following directions:-

“11]     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

                                [a] The Opposite Parties are directed to                                                refund an amount of Rs.56,180/- to the                                      complainant;

[b] The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 [b] The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.56,180/- as well as compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.”

2.             The facts, in brief, are that  the complainant, in response to the advertisement of Opposite Party No.1, for providing best immigration consultancy, visited its office and consulted for Skilled Visa for Australia and on consultation, Opposite Party No.3 being the Executive Official of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, after going through the documents and experience, advised him that he was eligible for Internal Auditor under the Skilled Visa category and he fulfilled all the conditions for it. Thereafter, the complainant supplied a set of copies of all the documents, sought by the Opposite Parties and applied a skilled visa for Australia in the office of Opposite Party No.1 and deposited an amount of Rs.56,180/- as consultation fee vide receipt dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure C-1). It was stated that whatever documents were demanded by the Opposite Parties, the same were supplied by the complainant, apart from paying skill assessment fee of 866 AUD (Australian Dollor).  Later on, the complainant received a call from Vetassess to know about his personal, educational, professional details, which he disclosed. After enquiring from the complainant, Vetassess had decided that the profile of the complainant submitted by the Opposite Parties did not match with the visa for Internal Auditor and advised him to apply for Certified Public Accountant for re-assessment of visa. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties informed the complainant that his case had been rejected by Vetassess (Australia’s leading vocational education and training (VET) assessment provider) on the ground that the documents and experience of the complainant did not match with the category of skill visa for Internal Auditor. However, Opposite Party No.3 asked the complainant to apply for CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or for reassessment of the same visa for Internal Auditor through the Opposite Parties for new consultation charges, which was refused by him.  Thereafter, the complainant demanded the return of his fees paid to the Opposite Parties and they assured him to return the same very soon but later on they refused.  It was averred that the Opposite Parties were very well aware that the case of the complainant did not fall in the category of Internal Auditor but they made him to wrongly apply in the said category and charged the amount of Rs.56,180/- and later on wrongly asked him to pay an amount of 866 AUD as skill assessment fee.  Further, due to the rejection of the case of the complainant, he suffered a loss of Rs.56,180/- and 866 AUD, for which, the Opposite Parties were jointly and severally responsible. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             In their written statement, the Opposite Parties, stated that the complainant had entered into a Contract of Engagement dated 23.08.2013 with them for immigration to Australia under Skiller Worker Category – Skills Assessment (Annexure R-1). It was admitted that the complainant made the payment of an amount of non-refundable professional fee of Rs.50,000/- including service tax of Rs.6180/-. It was pleaded that the payment of AUD 866 was to be paid to Vetassess and the same was non-refundable, as per Clause 7 of the Contract of Engagement and, therefore the same could not be claimed by the Opposite Parties. It was averred that the complainant submitted the complete case filing documents to the Company and his complete case was duly filed for Skill Assessment as Internal Auditor i.e. under the requisite category by the Opposite Parties before the respective Skill Assessment body on 28.09.2013 (Annexure R-5). So, the complainant himself was at fault, as he gave different version at the time of his interview, which was different from the CV provided by him to the Opposite Party Company. It was stated that the complainant in his assessment form, attached as Annexure R-4 clearly mentioned that he has worked as Internal Auditor as full time for the past 8 years. Moreover, Vetassess vide e-mail dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure R-8) gave a full length explanation regarding the negative outcome, wherein, it was mentioned that skill level of the applicant is below than required for nominated occupation. It was further pleaded that the Opposite Parties performed their part, hence they were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the Forum failed to consider that the complainant had deposited his entire amount, which included the retainer fee i.e. Rs.56,180/- and the Skill Assessment fee i.e. 866 AUD (Australian Dollar) only but the Forum remained silent upon his rightful claim with regard to the claim of assessment fee of 866 AUD, which was deposited by him on the direction and advice of the respondents/Opposite Parties and not on the direction of the Vetassess and, therefore, he is entitled for the entire amount, claimed in his complaint. He further submitted that the Forum failed to consider that the Opposite Parties had not guided complainant properly with regard to the papers, so required, for the Skilled Visa, which was the prime and professional duty of them and, for which, they had taken the consultation fee.  He further prayed for modifying the impugned order and enhancement of compensation, as awarded by the Forum.

9.             The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties admitted regarding the receipt of consultancy fee of Rs.56,180/- and also payment of 866 AUD, which was forwarded to Vetassess, which is a separate Company, for the purpose of assessment of the case of the complainant and, as such, he cannot demand the said amount of 866 AUD from the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that there was no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties because the complainant himself was at fault as he gave different version at the time of his interview, which was different from the CV provided by him to the Company. He further submitted that the complainant failed to provide necessary information, which was desired by Vetassess for the fulfillment of his qualifications for the skilled category Visa for Australia and, as such, Vetassess, vide email dated 25.02.2014 gave explanation regarding the negative outcome (Annexure R-8). He further submitted that there was no fault on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the appeal, filed by the complainant.

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the parties,  and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.            The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant/complainant is entitled to refund the assessment fee of 866 AUD, which was forwarded to Vetassess, despite the amount of Rs.56,180/- already awarded by the Forum alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Admittedly, the complainant availed the services of the Opposite Parties for processing his application under a Skilled Visa Category for Internal Auditor in Australia, for which, he paid an amount of Rs.56,180/- vide receipt dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure C-1) and Contract of Engagement was also executed between the complainant and WWICS Ltd. on 23.08.2013 (Annexure R-1). It is also proved from the record that the complainant supplied all the documents, as and when, demanded by the Opposite Parties but the Vetassess rejected the case of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was advised to either apply for reassessment or apply for the category of Certified Public Accountant (CPA), to which, he refused and demanded his fee by filling up the Declaration Form  (Annexure C-13) but despite repeated requests and receipt of the legal notice, the Opposite Parties failed to refund the amount. It is also proved from Annexure R-3 that the complainant paid 866 AUD to Vetassess. The plea of the Opposite Parties that the complainant is not entitled to demand the said amount of 866 AUD from them because the same was forwarded to Vetassess, has no force, at all.  It is, no doubt, true that the complainant paid the huge amount for availing the services of the Opposite Parties. It was the duty of the Opposite Parties to consult the complainant properly and to prepare his file in a proper manner, but they failed to do so. Even the complainant denied the allegation levelled by the Opposite Parties, in his rejoinder, that the complainant gave different version at the time of interview, which was different from the CV provided by him to the Opposite Parties and he himself was at fault. He stated that the Opposite Parties sent a sample of CV to the complainant for processing his file and on the basis of the said CV, he sent his CV to them, as per their requirements. The complainant submitted all the documents, certificates, CV, experience certificates, as sought by the Opposite Parties for processing his file as “internal auditor” and at the time of interview, he gave exact version of his sufficient experience, which was already consulted with the Opposite Parties and this version was already given in the resume submitted to the Opposite Parties by the complainant, which they had duly accepted at their full satisfaction. A bare perusal of Annexure C-4 clearly reveals that the Opposite Parties observed that there was short-coming in the case of the complainant, so, we are of the view that the Forum rightly held that even after having observed such a short-coming in the case of the complainant, no instructions were issued to him either for redrafting of his application or consulting the samples provided or asking him to provide a better version of his experience certificate, so as to fortify his case for qualification for skilled visa category. Further, the Forum rightly held that the Opposite Parties had done nothing to help the case of the complainant and, thus, leaving his case at the mercy of the Vetassess, even though they were in full knowledge that his case was weak and would certainly fail, at the stage of final assessment, which ultimately did happen. Moreover, the Opposite Parties also demanded a declaration form, which was submitted by him on 29.05.2014 (Annexure C-13) and they failed to refund the consultancy fee, charged by them. It may be stated here that the Opposite Parties failed to explain as to what was the reason for seeking such declaration, when they did not intend to refund his consultancy fee. 

12.            However, the Forum erred in not granting the refund of assessment fee of 866 AUD to the complainant holding that the same was not retained by the Opposite Parties and was forwarded to Vetassess. After going through the documents and record of the Forum, we are of the considered view that the complainant deserves skill assessment fee i.e. 866 AUD (Australian Dollar) deposited by him through Vetassess, which was (Australia’s leading vocational & education and training assessment provider), as he had deposited the entire amount i.e. retainer fee of Rs.56,180/- and skill assessment fee of 866 AUD, only on the direction and advice of the respondents/Opposite Parties and not on the direction of the Vetassess. The complainant paid 866 AUD to Vetassess at the behest of WWICS. Though there is, no doubt, true that Vetassess is a separate independent Company at Australia, whose services were taken by the Opposite Parties for skill assessment, the complainant  did not go to Australia himself to get into contact with Vetassess and to pay the required fee to it. Even WWICS had failed to guide properly to the complainant with regard to the papers so required for the skilled visa, which was the prime and professional duty of the respondents and, for which, they had taken the consultation fee. The Opposite Parties being professional must know that the case of the complainant did not fall with the “internal auditor” category, for which, they earlier charged Rs.56,180/- and later on asked him to pay AUD 866 to the assessment authority. Moreover, the Opposite Parties (WWICS) should have guided the complainant in a proper manner so that his application would not have been rejected. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the amount i.e. AUD 866 to the complainant, besides refund of the amount of Rs.56,180/-, awarded by the Forum alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

13.            With regard to the enhancement of the compensation, claimed by the appellant/complainant is concerned, no ground whatsoever has been made out by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. As such, the compensation already granted by the Forum is fair, just and adequate.

14.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The order of the Forum is modified, in the following manner:-

1.             The respondents/Opposite Parties are      directed to refund 866 AUD to the   complainant.
2.             The respondents/Opposite Parties   are    also directed to refund an amount of Rs.56,180/-      to the complainant, as awarded       by the     Forum.
3.             The respondents/Opposite Parties are      directed   to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as         compensation for     causing mental agony and        harassment on account of deficiency in     service,as         awarded by the Forum.
4.             The respondents/Opposite Parties are also       directed to pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant, as awarded     by the Forum. 
5.             If the order is not complied with, within the      stipulated period of 45 days, from the date     of     receipt of a certified copy thereof, the     amount     mentioned in Clause (i), (ii) & (iii),     above, shall     be     payable by the         respondents/ Opposite     Parties alongwith     interest @18%    per   annum,    from the   date         of filing the complaint, till actual payment,     besides cost of litigation.

15.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                         

October 08, 2015.                                                                                                 Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

Sd/-

                                           (PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER