DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                            Consumer Complaint No.497  of 2016

                                  Date of institution:   17.08.2016                                  Date of decision  :  30.10.2017 

Didar Singh S/o Assa Singh R/o Village Dikh, Tehsil Mandi Maur, District Bathinda, 151103, Punjab

……..Complainant

Versus

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.(WWICS), A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali-160055, Punjab, India through its Principal Officer.

…..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present :           Shri P.S.Ahluwalia, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri K.S.Rupal, counsel for the OP.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant Didar Singh S/o Assa Singh R/o Village Dikh, Tehsil Mandi Maur, District Bathinda, 151103, Punjab, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.            The complainant planned to migrate to Canada on permanently basis and for this motive he approached the OP on 16.03.2015.  Authorized representative of OP; namely, Ugti Narang, discussed the whole plan of migration to Canada with the complainant and prepared a chart of various stages of documentation, which is required to be done for the said purpose. It was assured by the said representative that OP will get the status of permanent residence of Canada to the complainant in 5-6 months if the OP will file his application. He further stated that OP will charge Rs.12,00,000/- and the complainant has option to pay the fee of OP in two installments i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- and Visa Fee i.e. $5700 USD to be paid by the complainant at the time of initiation of documentation process and the remaining fee to be paid after the permanent residency of the complainant stands approved by Canadian High Commission. Relying upon the assurance given by the representative of the OP, the complainant accepted the offer and paid Rs.2,02,248/- vide receipt No.11191152898 dated 16.03.2015 and File No.C15-111301 was given to the complainant for future references. Thereafter, in the month of April 2015 the complainant handed over $5700 USD to the OP, vide receipt No.2119151180 dated 28.04.2015, which the complainant had purchased @ Rs.65/- per dollar. The complainant had paid the total amount of Rs.5,72,748/- to the OP and the OP assured the complainant that the permanent residency will be approved by Canadian High Commission within 5-6 months.  Thereafter the complainant visited the OP time and again but the OP failed to give any satisfactory response. Thereafter the complainant demanded for refund of amount paid as OP has not done anything in concern with his permanent residence project but the OP refused to refund the amount to the complainant.  The act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.5,72,748/-; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the hardship and inconvenience faced by the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OP, who filed written reply. In reply to the complaint, OP raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being pre-mature and this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint the OP stated that the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- only(excluding service tax of an amount of Rs.22,248/-) towards fee of the OP. The complainant had further entered into another contract with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy (GSBC), Dubai, on 16.03.2015 and paid the said amount of US $ 5700 to M/s GSBC vide receipt dated 28.04.2015. The complainant, at his own will, had entered into the said contract with the OP under Provincial Nominee Program for the purpose of securing a job offer from an employer in Canadian Province and voluntarily paid an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-(excluding service tax of an amount of Rs.22,248/-) to the OP.  The said amount is non refundable in view of clause 9 (i) of the contract dated 25.03.2015. It is further stated that the complainant was duly informed by the OP that immigration authorities may take longer time for processing a case and thus the complainant was advised to wait for some more time as the OP has no control over the concerned authority with respect to same. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/1; copies of visiting card Ex. C-1; migration plan chart Ex.C-2; payment receipt Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-4; eligibility criteria for migration to Canada Ex. C-5; educational certificate Ex. C-6; mark sheet of the complainant Ex. C-7; experience certificate and salary slip Ex. C-8; IELTS score sheet Ex. C-9 and birth certificate for the complainant Ex. C-10.  In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepak Bajaj its authorised representative Ex. OP1/1; contract of engagement OP-1; receipt Ex. OP-2; contact of engagement Ex.OP-3 and order of the District Consumer Forum-1 U.T. Chandigarh Mark-A.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on assurance of  representative of the OP that he will got permanent residence of Canada within 5-6 months, he applied through the OP for processing his case and paid Rs.2,02,248/- and US $ 5700 vide receipts dated 16.03.2015 and 28.04.2015 respectively to the OPs.  The dollars were purchased by the complainant at the rate of Rs.65- per dollar and the complainant paid Rs.3,70,500/- for purchasing 5700 US $.  Learned counsel has argued that the OP has assured the complainant that he is qualified to migrate to Canada permanently but as per the rules of Canada Immigration and Citizenship, a person can migrate to Canada as skilled immigrant only if he scores 67 points based upon Nationality, age, language ability, family members, education, work experience and details of job offer..  Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was not scoring 67 points and was short of qualifying points. Learned counsel has argued that points can only be calculated for the purpose of migration to Canada if the candidate got his education assessed from Canadian Institute but the OP has not got assessed the qualification of the complainant from Canadian Institute. Learned counsel has thus argued that this is the reason that the case of the complainant was not processed by the OP and thus the OP has committed deficiency in service.

6.             On the other hand learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant had retained the services of the OP under Provincial Nominee Program vide contract dated 25.03.2015. Learned counsel has argued that as per Clause 3 of the contract the complainant had agreed that the normal time period to obtain job offer make take upto 24 months and the OP shall not be held responsible for any delay occurring in processing period of issuance of job offer/nomination letter at the end of concerned Provincial Authorities. The complaint has filed the present complaint on 17.08.2016 which is pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed. 

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties.  During the course of arguments in 14.09.2017, learned counsel for the OP got recorded his statement that he has brought post dated cheque dated 15.10.2017 in terms of refund clause 9 (iii) of the contract and placed a copy of the cheque on the file. He further stated that the OP is ready to refund amount of US Dollar 4200 as per Clause 9 (iii) of the Contract on instructions of M/s. GSBC Dubai. The learned counsel on instructions from the complainant refused the offer of the OP and stated that the complaint may be decided on merits. The complainant has produced Ex.C-5 which is a detailed document downloaded from the site of Government of Canada as to who can apply as a provincial nominee, points for nationality, age, language ability, family members, education, work experience and details on any job offer have been mentioned. For getting points for the education, foreign education is to be got assessed from an agency approved by CIC to show it is valid and equal to a completed Canadian Credential.  The OP has not produced any document to show that the educational qualification of the complainant was got assessed from an agency approved by CIC.  The contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the complaint is pre-mature is not accepted as since the complainant was not eligible for skilled worker category, the contract of engagement between the complainant and the OP could never be accomplished. When the complainant was not at all eligible under the Skilled Worker Category, the OP was required to impart professional advice in a correct manner. Knowing fully well that the complainant was not eligible for the grant of visa under skilled worker category, the OP gave him wrong professional advice. Therefore, the Op by misleading the complainant, indulged in unfair trade practice. Thus, the time limit stipulated in the contract of engagement was not relevant and the complaint is, thus, not pre mature.  The complainant has been successful in proving his case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a latest decision in Ms. Sneh Sood Vs. M/s. Bajwa Developers Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016 decided on 23.02.2017 has ordered refund of the deposited amount of the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts till the date of actual refund.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.5,72,748/-    (Rs. Five Lakhs Seventy Two thousand Seven Hundred Forty Eight only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts till the date of actual refund. We also find that complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony due to the negligent act of the OP and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-  (Rs. Ten thousand only). The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.   

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 30.10.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member