BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No 621 of 2014
Date of Institution : 27.11.2014
Date of Decision :18.12.2015
Guriqbal Singh Kahlon son of Late Joginder Singh at present R/o H.No. 60, Bhai Himmat Singh Nagar, Near Oxford School, P.O.Vijay Nagar,Amritsar earlier resident of CCDO Cooperative Sugar Mills, Batala, District Gurdaspur
Complainant
Versus
- Branch Manager, World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., SCO 112, District Shopping Center, Near ICICI Bank, Amritsar
- M/s. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., through its Managing Direcrtor A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab
- M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation having a branch office at SCO 112, District Shopping Centre, Near ICICI Bank, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.P.K.Bhardwaj,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 : Sh.M.Menon,Advocate
For opposite party No.3 : Ex-parte
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
1 Present complaint has been filed by Guriqbal Singh Kahlon under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he visited opposite party No.1 in the month of August 2003 to enquire about immigration to Canada, who assured the complainant that he would be immigrated to Canada within two years. Complainant has alleged that he was also assured that if in any case , complainant did not qualify for immigration the whole fee would be refunded. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 58000/- and 1600 US $ to the opposite parties in installments i.e. Rs. 10000/- paid vide cheque No. 738071 dated 28.7.2003, Rs.15000/- paid in cash, Rs. 33000/- for depositing to Canadian High Commission and US $ 1600 to opposite party No.3. Complainant has alleged that he also spent more than Rs. 10000/- in preparing the documents which the complainant provided to the opposite parties. In the month of March, 2013 i.e. about 10 years , complainant came to know that he did not qualify for immigration to Canada. Complainant asked opposite party No.1 to refund the amount which he had paid to them but they flatly refused and replied that it is not the policy of the company to refund the amount. The complainant visited opposite party No.1 number of times for the refund of the abovesaid amount, but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 58000/-plus US $ 1600 with interest @ 12%. Opposite parties be also directed to refund Rs. 10000/- spent on preparing the documents. Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that since the complainant himself did not wish the opposite parties to represent him before the Canadian High Commission and started direct dealing with the Canadian High Commission by revoking the authority of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 before the Canadian High Commission by changing his address, therefore, opposite parties No.1 & 2 cannot be blamed for the rejection and the complainant is not entitled to any refund. The client application status letter of the Canadian High Commission wherein the mailing address of opposite party No.2 has been changed by the complainant himself and is showing the address of the complainant . Had the complainant not revoked the authority of the opposite party No.2, the requirement letter would have come to opposite parties who would have guided the complainant to send the required documents . An e-mail of the Canadian High Commission dated 8.7.2013 showing that the case has been processed and closed on 3.11.2008 and vide mail dated 20.11.2008 replying opposite parties came to know about the decision, having been made and the change of address by the complainant. It was submitted that complainant had retained the services of the opposite parties by executing a contract of engagement and had paid an amount of Rs. 25000/- vide receipt dated 19.6.2003 and 19.8.2003 and the company started providing services from day one , the services such as :-
a) Counseling and advising the client about the immigration category in which he retained the services and the immigration procedure to be followed.
- Providing and counseling the client about immigration package and the check list of documents. Explaining the client in detail about the documents and the forms that are necessary for filing immigration application.
- Advising and guiding the client in preparation of documents and forms for himself, his spouse and children in proper format as per the requirement of immigration authorities etc. documents such as Experience documents, education documents etc.
3 It was submitted that as the case of the complainant was duly filed before the Canadian High Commission which was acknowledged by the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 25.11.2003 wherein a file No. B045828963 (101) was allotted to the complainant , thus the opposite parties had duly performed their part of the contract and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It was further submitted that complainant has wrongly impleaded the branch office of WWICS Ltd,Amritsar for affecting the service of M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai which is a separate legal entity with whom the complainant had signed a separate contract of engagement and had paid an amount of US $1600 directly vide receipt dated 4.2.2004. The complainant had paid Rs. 33000/- as fee towards the Visa Processing fee of the Canadian High Commission which is non refundable and thus the complainant cannot claim the said amount from the opposite parties. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.1.2015.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11.
6. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Abhishek Mahajan, branch manager Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant in order to get permanent immigration to Canada got service of the opposite party and paid Rs. 58000/- and 1600 US $ to the opposite party in installments. The complainant paid Rs. 10000/- to opposite party No.1 vide cheque/receipt Ex.C-5 dated 28.7.2003 and Rs. 15000/- vide receipt dated 19.6.2003 Ex.C-4 ; in all Rs. 25000/- to opposite parties No.1 & 2, Rs. 33000/- to Canadian High Commission at New Delhi vide receipt Ex.C-6 and US $ 1600 to opposite party No.3 for services at Canada. The complainant also executed contract of engagement Ex.C-3 with opposite parties No.1 & 2 and contract of engagement Ex.C-7 with opposite party No.3. The complainant further submitted that he spent more than Rs. 10000/- in preparing the documents as the opposite parties did not help the complainant in preparing the those documents. Opposite parties did not perform their part of the contract. In March, 2013, the complainant came to know from opposite party No.1 that the complainant did not qualify for immigration to Canada. The complainant alleges that opposite parties had wasted 10 precious years of the life of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties to refund the amount which he paid to them , but they flatly refused to refund the amount. The complainant submitted that services of opposite party No.3 were to be utilized only after reaching Canada as the complainant did not reach Canada, so no service were provided by opposite party No.3 to the complainant. Opposite parties neither got immigration to Canada for the complainant nor refund the amount paid by him to the opposite parties. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
9. Whereas case of opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the complainant has unilaterally revoked the authority of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 by stating that he did not want to represent the case of the complainant before the Canadian High Commission and started direct dealing with the Canadian High Commission. The complainant even changed the address as per the application submitted by the complainant Ex.OP1. The e-mail from Canadian High Commission Ex.C-2 dated 8.7.2013 fully proves that the case of the complainant has been processed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2, however same was closed on 3.11.2008 and e-mail dated 20.11.2008 Ex.OP3. The Canadian High Commission informed the complainant that the application of the complainant is reflecting that the client’s own address instead of WWICS, so they informed opposite parties No.1 & 2 that the client has been dealing directly with the Canadian High Commission which is against the agreement which is against the contract of agreement . It is quite possible that Canadian High Commission might have sent the IRPA requirement directly to client and complainant failed to submit the required documents and it was informed that it is a serious offence from client, as such he is solely responsible for the outcome of application. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 further submitted that the case of the complainant was closed/rejected/decision made by the Canadian High Commission on 3.11.2008 as is clear from e-mail dated 8.7.2013 Ex.OP2 of the Canadian High Commission, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant after a lapse of a period of more than 6 years on 27.11.2014 before this Forum ,as such the same is barred by limitation. That in view of the contract of engagement Ex.OP4, opposite parties No.1 & 2 started providing services to the complainant from day one such as counseling and advising about the immigration category, immigration package, check list of documents, details of documents, preparation of documents and forms from the complainant , his spouse and children in proper format as per requirement of immigration authorities such as Experience documents, education documents etc. The case of the complainant was duly filed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 before the Canadian High Commission which was duly cancelled by the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 25.11.2003 as is evident from the letter of Canadian High Commission Ex.OP7 wherein file number B045828963 (101) was allotted to the complainant. So opposite parties No.1 & 2 had been duly performing their part of the contract , duly advised and guided the complainant about necessary requirements/documents, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 and 2 qua the complainant. But the complainant later on started dealing directly with the Canadian High Commission and his case has been rejected due to his own fault. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 further submitted that opposite party No.3 M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation is a separate legal entity with whom the complainant had signed a separate contract of engagement Ex.C-7 and had paid an amount US $ 1600 directly to opposite party No.3 vide receipt dated 4.2.2004 Ex.OP9. The complainant had paid amount of Rs. 33000/- towards Visa Processing fee directly to the Canadian High Commission vide receipt Ex.C-6 dated 30.10.2003 which is not refundable. So the complainant cannot claim this amount from opposite parties No.1 & 2. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant applied for permanent immigration to Canada in 2003 through opposite parties No.1 & 2 and deposited requisite fee ie. Rs 25000/- to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide receipts Ex.C-4 and C-5. The complainant paid Rs. 33000/- direct to Canadian High Commission vide receipt Ex.C-6 dated 30.10.2003 and he entered into contract of engagement with opposite parties No.1 & 2 which is Ex.C-3. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 prepared all the documents and submitted the case of the complainant with Canadian High Commission which was acknowledged by the Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 25.11.2003 Ex.OP7 and the complainant was allotted file No. B045828963(101). Therefore, it stands fully proved on record that opposite parties No.1 & 2 had duly performed their part of the contract. The complainant further entered into contract of engagement with opposite party No.3 Ex.OP8 for services to be provided in Canada and for that purpose, the complainant paid 1600 US $ direct to opposite party No.3 vide receipt Ex.OP9. However, Canada Government introduced new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act which became law on 29.6.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by operation of law. As the application of the complainant was received by the Canadian High Commission on 25.11.2003 vide letter Ex.C-6, his case also stood terminated by operation of law. As such the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are nowhere in deficiency of service qua the complainant as they have already performed all the duties which the opposite parties No.1 & 2 were required to perform as per Contract of Engagement executed between the parties Ex.C-3. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are liable to refund the amount of processing/profession fee paid by the client to the company in the event visa officer reject client’s case and the company is unable to revert such decision by any means. Therefore, refund clause of the aforesaid contract of engagement in the present case is not applicable against opposite parties No.1 & 2. If the changes in immigration rules and regulations due to which client would no longer qualify for immigration to the destination country. Here in this case the Canadian Government introduced new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act which became law on 29.6.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.2.2008 were terminated by operation of law and this decision of the Canada Government was held legal and valid by Federal Court of Canada vide judgement Ex.C-10. So the case of the complainant stood terminated by operation of law and not due to fault or lapse on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
11. However, complainant has paid US $ 1600 to opposite party No.3 vide receipt dated 4.2.2004 Ex.C-8 and has directly entered into contract of engagement Ex.C-7 with opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 was to provide services to the complainant in Canada i.e. had the complainant been provided visa/immigration and the complainant had landed in Canada, so the services of opposite party No.3 would have come into force after the landing of the complainant in Canada. But the complainant could not get visa/immigration for Canada, as such opposite party No.3 is liable to refund the amount, they had received from the complainant vide receipt dated 4.2.2004 Ex.C-8 as per contract of engagement Ex.C-7. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 despite service to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from opposite party No.3 dared to file any affidavit or to appear in the witness box to rebut the case of the complainant.
12. Resultantly we hold that opposite party No.3 is liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant to opposite party No.3 vide receipt Ex.C-8 i.e. US $ 1600. The complainant has paid Rs. 33000/- to Canadian High Commission directly vide receipt Ex.C-6, so he can claim that amount from Canadian High Commission. But the complainant has not made Canadian High Commission as party to the present complaint. No order can be passed regarding the amount paid by the complainant to Canadian High Commission vide receipt Ex.C-6.
13. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint and opposite party No. 3 is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant to opposite party No.3 vide receipt Ex.C-8 US $ 1600 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which opposite party No.3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs 2000/- to the complainant. Complaint against opposite parties No.1 & 2 is hereby dismissed. . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
18.12.2015 (Bhupinder Singh ) President
/R/ (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
