| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 285 of 22.7.2016 Decided on: 25.4.2018 Amandeep Singh S/o Sh.Randhir Singh aged 33 years, resident of H.No.86, Part-2, Village Baran, District and Tehsil, Patiala, Patiala-147001. …………...Complainant Versus - WWICS Ltd., Registered office at A12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Mohali, Punjab, India through Managing Director.
- WWICS Ltd., SCO 11, First Floor, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through Branch Head.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Mukesh Arora,Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.S.Sidhu,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties. ORDER SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT Sh.Amandeep Singh complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) . The brief facts of the complaint are that on 18.2.2012, the complainant entered into a contract of engagement with the OPs for getting services for securing job offer from Canada with the approval from SINP authority. On 22.2.2012, it was informed by the OPs thatthe information furnished by him was assessed by the immigration assessment experts and he was found eligible. The job offer was received by the OPs on 25.6.2012 from Saskatchewanand informed him on 9.4.2013. They had to further process his case with SINP authority. The complainant deposited the entire amount settled in the contract for engagement i.e. the payment of an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-was made on 18.2.2012 and the payment of US$ 4700, US$ 6000 and US$ 2000 was made on 26.3.2012, 20.7.2012 and 13.8.2012 respectively . It is stated that as per one of the clauses of the contract of engagement, the job offer had to be secured within 24 months from the date of execution of contract i.e. between 22.2.2012 till 22.2.2014. That on 3rd December,2012, Sh.Ramesh Thakur sent an Activation Letter of Ardel Steel from SINP authority. It was also informed that the job approval form for all the vacancies had also been uploaded and the approval was expected soon. The complainant kept on enquiring about his case from time to time but the OPs kept onpostponing the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant time and againsente-mails to the OPs for the refund of amount paid by him to the OPs. On 9.9.2014, the complainant received an e-emailsent by the OPs regarding approval of refund of amount of Rs.50,000/-.Another e-mail regarding approval of refund of 9000 US$ was sent by the OPs, mentioning therein that the cheque/DD would be available after 120 days from the receipt of consent letter. It is stated that the OPs made the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- less than the payment made to them at the time of entering into contract of engagement. The complainant kept on requesting the OPs for the payment of balance amount but of no avail. There is thus not only deficiency of service on the part of the OPs but they have also committed unfair trade practice. The act and conduct of the OPs caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to refund the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/-,to pay penal interest @18% per annum on the entire amount used by the OPs during the period 2012 till 2016 and also to pay Rs.1lac as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant has already received the amount as full and final settlement of his claim; that the complainant had retained the services of the OPs by executing two contracts of engagements dated 18.2.2012; that this Hon’ble Forum does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had agreed in Arbitration clause i.e. clause 14 of Contract dated 18.2.2012, that all the differences and disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Arbitration. It is admitted that the complainant entered into a contract of engagement for getting services for securing job offer from Canada with the approval from SINP authority and the same was signed by both the parties on 18.2.2012.It is also admitted that the job offer was received on 25.6.2012 from Saskatchewan and the complainant was intimated for the same on 9.4.2013.It is admitted thatas per clause of the said contract of engagement, the job offer had to be secured within 24 months from the date of execution of contract. Thepayment of Rs.1,30,000/-, US$4700, US$6000 and US$2000 on 18.2.2012, 26.3.2012, 20.7.2012 and 13.8.2012 respectively made by the complainant has also been admitted by the OPs. It is further admitted that the OPs informed the complainant regarding activation letter received from concerned employer and to wait for approval of immigration authority. It is stated that as per clause 3 of the contract dated 18.2.2012, the OPs were required to obtain the job offer within 24 months and accordingly job offer was obtained on 25.6.2012. Thereafter, as per the process , the employer who issued the job offer had to upload a vacancy on the portal of Saskatchewan authorities and get final approval for the job offer issued. The case of the complainant was under process but he decided to cancel the entire process and applied for refund vide his application dated 1.9.2014. Although as per clause 9(1), 10(a)(ii) and (iii) of the contract, the complainant was not entitled to any refund, however, a compromise was effected and the complainant agreed to receive the amount of Rs.50,000/- and US $9000 towards full and final settlement of his claim. The said amount has already been refunded to the complainant and now he is estopped from making any claim against the OPs for refund. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed his evidence. The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj, Authorized representative of the OPs alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP11 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully. As per the complainant, he hired the services of the Ops for securing job offer from Canada and entered into an agreement, Ex.C6/OP7 with the OPs on 18.2.2012. He paid an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-& 12700 US $ to the OPs for the said purpose. Since, the OPs did not provide him proper services, therefore, he requested the OPs on 22.2.2014 for the refund of the amount deposited by him. However, the OPs instead of refunding him the entire amount had refunded US $ 9000 and Rs.50,000/-only. It is prayed that the OPs may be directed to refund the remaining amount. - The plea of the OPs is that in lieu of the compromise arrived at with the complainant, the OPs had already refunded an amount of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque dated 30.1.2015 and US $9000 vide DD dated 29.4.2015. From the consent letter dated 25.9.2014, Ex.OP2, it is apparent that the complainant had arrived at a settlement with the OPs with his free will without there being any element of coercion or undue influence. Vide this consent letter, he agreed to receive an amount of Rs.US $9000 as full and final settlement towards refund. He has also given a declaration to the effect that once he will receive the above referred amount, then he shall not file any legal case or raise any claim against the company for refund or damages ever in future. Once the complainant has already received the agreed amount, therefore, he has no occasion to file the present complaint. Same may kindly be dismissed.
From the copies of letters dated 30.1.2015, Ex.OP3 and dated 5.5.2015 Ex.OP4, it is evident that the OPs had issued cheque dated 30.1.2015, for an amount of Rs.50,000/- andDD dated 25.5.2015 for US$9000/- through demand draft in favour of the complainant. The complainant has also admitted that the said amount has been received by him. From the consent letter dated 25.9.2014,Ex.OP2, it is abundantly clear that the complainant had agreed to receive 9000US$ as full and final settlement. The said amount had already been paid by the OPs to the complainant. It may be stated here that once the complainant had already received the aforesaid amount, as full and final settlement, therefore, we are of the view that no cause of action has accrued to him to file the complaint against the OPs and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the case ofWorldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. & 2 Ors. Vs. Gagandeep Singh Monga, Revision Petition No.3612 of 2014, decided on 16.4.2015, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has held that , “ the complainant has already settled the dispute with the opposite parties, by receiving Rs.15000/- and Rs.US$2500, he is stopped from reagitating the dispute already settled by filing a consumer complaint……….”. - In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint, being devoid of any merits. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 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:25.4.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
