DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC. No. 358 of 01-08-2012

Decided on 23-10-2012

Rattan Inder Singh, aged about 24 years S/o Sh. Harmit Singh R/o 22298, 100 Ft Road, Near Guru Nanak Public School, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. WWICS Global Resettlement Solutions, (Worldwide Immigration consultancy Services Ltd., )2^nd Floor, Grover Complex, G.T. Road, near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda 151 001 through its Manager/Incharge

2. WWICS Global Resettlement Solutions (Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., ) A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali 160 055 through Chairman & Managing Director/Director/Owner

3. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Business Partners of (Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.,) A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali 160055 through Manager/Incharge

   .......Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Ajitinder Singh Chahal, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have given advertisement in the news papers and the road holdings that they are providing the Visas for Canada, America etc., and after seeing the same and on the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant applied for VISA with the opposite parties at Bathinda Office for Canada under Contract of Engagement Skilled Work Category (Canada). As per Scheme, the opposite parties provide the Job Offer Scheme from Canada to complainant and he as per their desire paid Rs. 2,60,000/- first installment as fee to the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued two receipts in this regard i.e. for Rs. 55,200/- on 20-09-2010 and Rs. 1,74,800/- on 21-10-2010. At that time, the complainant was residing at Australia and on the assurance of the opposite parties, he came to India and passed the course of IELTS as per their requirement. Thereafter the opposite parties demanded US$ 5000 from the complainant which he paid vide DD No. 002335 dated 1-12-2010 of SBOP, Bathinda. The opposite parties again demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant which he paid on 16-12-2010 at Bathinda Branch. The complainant visited the opposite parties personally many times and requested them to get him Visa etc., or in the alternative pay the entire amount alongwith interest, but the opposite parties neither issued the Visa under Contract of Engagement Skilled Work Category Canada nor returned single penny to him. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties in this regard, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to issue the Visa papers under Contract of Engagement Skilled Work Category Canada or in the alternative pay the entire amount paid by him i.e. 2,60,000/- + US$ 5000 + Rs. 20,000/- to him alongwith interest besides compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and pleaded that complainant after hiring the professional services of the opposite parties has failed to cooperate with them and has also failed to give consent after receipt of job offer received from his employer. He voluntarily closed his case by forwarding a lawyer letter dated 19-07-2012 and as such, he himself is at fault and is not entitled to any refund. The opposite parties do not provide any job offer scheme rather the case of an intending immigrant is filed before Canadian High Commission by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have admitted the payment of amounts. The complainant has paid an amount of US$ 5000 to M/s. GSBC, Dubai for availing post landing services. The complainant had retained the services of opposite parties i.e. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., under Arranged Employment Job category. Similarly the complainant had also entered into a separate Contract of Engagement with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai i.e. opposite party No. 3 for availing post landing services. The documents were sent to Canada Office and the job offer was received on 10-11-2010 from the Canadian Employer CHURCHIL. Thereafter the case was filed with Services Canada and filing acknowledgement was received. Service Canada did not approve the job offer and as such fresh Job Offer was received from the new Employer i.e. LA Farina Bakery under SINP on 27-06-2012. The complainant was intimated regarding the job offer received and to give consent for the same so that his case can be processed further, but the complainant instead of giving the consent letter sent a legal notice dated 19-7-2012 terminating the contract voluntarily. The opposite parties have further pleaded that that since the complainant had himself voluntarily closed his case and did not cooperate to finalize the same, he is not entitled to any refund.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. These are undisputed facts between the parties that the complainant has availed the services of the opposite parties and applied for VISA through them at Bathinda Office for Canada under Contract of Engagement Skilled Work Category (Canada). He paid Rs. 2,60,000/- + US $ 5000 + Rs. 20,000/- to them.

6. The allegation of the complainant is that despite deposit of aforesaid amount, the opposite parties did not get VISA to him and ultimately, he got served legal notice upon the opposite parties requesting them either to arrange VISA as per agreement or refund him the entire amount. But, when no action was taken by the opposite parties, he knocked the door of this Forum.

7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the documents were sent to Canada Office and the job offer was received on 10-11-2010 from the Canadian Employer CHURCHIL. Thereafter the case was filed with Services Canada and filing acknowledgement was received. Service Canada did not approve the job offer and as such fresh Job Offer was received from the new Employer i.e. LA Farina Bakery under SINP on 27-06-2012. The complainant was intimated regarding the job offer received and to give consent for the same so that his case can be processed further, but the complainant instead of giving the consent letter sent a legal notice dated 19-7-2012 terminating the contract voluntarily. He further submitted that since the complainant had himself voluntarily closed his case and did not cooperate to finalize the same, he is not entitled to any refund.

8. A perusal of file reveals that first payment of Rs. 55,200/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties on 20-09-2010 and Contract of Engagement Skilled Worker Category Canada was got signed from the complainant on 24-09-2010. The pleading of the opposite parties that first offer was not approved by Service Canada and then fresh Job Offer was received from the new Employer i.e. LA Farina Bakery under SINP on 27-06-2012 and the complainant was intimated regarding the job offer received and to give consent for the same so that his case can be processed further, but he instead of giving the consent letter sent a legal notice dated 19-7-2012 terminating the contract voluntarily, is falsified by their own evidence. A perusal of Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-7 reveals that offer letter Ex. R-6 is dated May, 15, 2012 wherein it was offered to join the team of “La Farina” on or before May 10,2015. This offer was conveyed vide Ex. R-7 through e-mail on 1^st August, 2012 which reads as under :-

   “Please confirm if the client is interested to proceed further with fresh JO as we have already received the job offer for this client from Canadian employer LA FARINA BAKERY under SINP and also do the needful for the conversion of this case.”

   The legal notice was got served upon the opposite parties by the complainant on 19-07-2012. Hence, it cannot be said that complainant has voluntarily closed his case by sending a lawyer letter as till the service of legal notice, no service offer was offered to the complainant by the opposite parties even after a lapse of about two years. Moreover, the opposite parties have not placed any document on file to prove that this offer was ever sent or conveyed to the complainant.

9. The opposite parties have also placed on file a document Ex. R-8 which is copy of e-mail sent from Bathinda Branch to the complainant on 19^th July, 2012 i.e. vide which the complainant was asked to file a written application as it is their mandatory requirement if he seeks refund of the amount. Both these documents Ex. R-8 and Ex. R-7 are contradictory. On 1^st August, 2012 through e-mail Ex. R-7 fresh offer was being conveyed and vide Ex. R-8 on 19^th July, 2012, the complainant was being asked to submit written application for refund. In the affidavit Ex. R-11 Sh. Rajiv Bajaj, authorised representative of opposite party No. 3 has deposed in

   para No. 6 :

   “...The receipt of new Job offer was sent to the Bathinda branch office by the Head Office vide e-mail dated 1-8-2012 which is Ex. R-7 and the complainant was asked as to whether he wants to proceed with the fresh job offer however the complainants visited the office and informed the branch orally that he is no longer interest in pursuing the case and wants refund. In this regard an e-mail dated 19-7-2012 (Ex. R-8) was sent to the complainant asking him to file a written application for refund.”

10. The aforesaid wording in the affidavit and the documents Ex. R-7 & Ex. R-8 makes the position crystal clear that these copies of mails are an after thought as the complainant was never offered any job. When no job offer was received by the complainant, there was no question of consent letter from him.

11. In the affidavit Ex. R-11 Sh. Rajiv Bajaj, authorised representative of opposite party No. 3 has mentioned that this Forum has got no jurisdiction as per clause 17 of the Contract of Engagement dated 24-09-2010 executed by the complainant with opposite party No. 1 and clause 13 executed by the complainant with opposite party No. 3. Further as per Clause 17 of Contract of Engagement all the disputes arising between the parties be referred to the sole arbitration. The execution of agreement is that which has been signed by all the parties and terms and conditions of such agreement are binding on the parties. A perusal of Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2, the clauses of which have been referred above, have been signed only by the complainant and have not been signed by the opposite parties. Thus, it cannot be said that those agreements were executed between the parties. In such circumstances, the complainant is not bound by any clause or terms or conditions of the agreements which have not signed by all the parties.

12. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which they tried to hide by creating false evidence.

13. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 20,000/- as cost and compensation against all the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- + US$ 5,000 + Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.

    The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the aforesaid payable amount will yield interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 01-08-2012 till realization.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record.

Pronounced

23-10-2012

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

 

 

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

.