Punjab

StateCommission

A/557/2017

Gurpremjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                   First Appeal No.557 of 2017

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 25.07.2017

                                                          Order Reserved on :04.10.2017      

                                                          Date of Decision   :09.10.2017

   

Gurpremjit Singh, aged about 53 years son of Sh. Baldev Singh, resident of H.No. 124, Partap Nagar, Patiala.

 

                                                                         Appellant/Complainant  

                    Versus

 

1.      WWICS Ltd., Registered Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase         6, Mohali, Punjab through its Director.

2.      WWICS Ltd., SCO 11, First Floor, Leela Bhawan, Patiala,        through its Manager.

 

                                                                Respondents/Opposite parties

First Appeal against order dated 01.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Patiala

 

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

Present:-

 

          For appellant                   : appellant in person

          For respondent no.1&2           : Sh.Raman Walia, Advocate

         

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 01.06.2017 of District Consumer Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Patiala, dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint before District Forum Patiala and respondents of this appeal are opposite parties therein and they be referred as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments, that he entered into a contract of engagement with OPs for availing their services for securing the job offer in Canada with the approval from SINP authority. The job offer was received by OPs on 14.10.2011 from Saskatchewan and he was intimated on 03.11.2011 and his case was to be further processed with SINP authority. OPs asked him for depositing remaining fees on 03.11.2011, which was deposited by him, as settled in the contract of engagement for service. As per one of the clauses of the said contract, the job offer was to be secured within 24 months from the date of execution of contract i.e. 31.07.2011 to 31.07.2013. The payment of an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was made by him to OPs on 30.07.2011  and second and third installment of US $ 7500 and US $ 3988 were paid on 17.11.2011 and on 12.08.2011 respectively to OPs. The complainant enquired about status of his case from OPs through email and it was replied that some documents were not supplied by him, despite the fact that they were supplied by him to OPs in the month of November, 2011, as set out in his communication dated 05.04.2012. The reply camne from OPs through Deepika Khanna, mentioning the approval from SINP authority and the reason for delay was awaiting for said approval. OPs adopted only disinterested and apathetic approach to his case despite getting considerations from him. OPs only put up one excuse or the other for not accepting his case for his job offer in Canada. The time period was two years, as per contract of engagement for service, which was to expire on 31.07.2013. He requested to OPs and asked them to refund the  amount to him. OPs sent email on 13.08.2013 to him regarding approval of refund of Rs.77,460/- and Rs.11488/- US $, after 120 days from the date of receipt of consent letter, which is not a part of the agreement of service. OPs refunded Rs.11,488/- US $ and Rs.92460/- on 02.01.2014 and paid less amount of Rs.37,540/- to him. He contacted the employer Desjardins, who had given job offer for confirmation of the job at the instance of OPs and he made it clear that job offer did not belong to them due to fake documents. He alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and he also approached police for lodging FIR against them. The complainant prayed for refund of amount of Rs.37540/-, which was illegally deducted by OPs with interest @ 18% from  year 2011 till 2014 and further prayed for Rs.1 lac, as compensation for undue harassment caused to him.

3.      Upon notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred that the complainant engaged the services of OPs on 31.07.2017 and the job offer was obtained on 14.10.2011. Thereafter, as per the process, the  employer has to upload a vacancy on the portal of Sasketchwan Authorities and get final approval for the job. The case of the complainant was under process for getting final approval of the  job. However, the complainant did not wait for approval and instead applied for refund, vide his application dated 01.08.2013. The complainant also filed a police complaint at Patiala against OPs, where compromise was effected between the parties. Apart from the amount of Rs.77460/- and US $ 11488, the complainant was also paid an amount of Rs.15,000/-, vide cheque no. 032052 dated 10.12.2013. The payment of Rs.92460/- and US $ 11488 were made to complainant as per the compromise and as per consent letter duly signed by him. Rest of the averments were denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-27. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Bajaj Authorized Representative M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd Ex.OP-A along with copies of document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Patiala dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 01.06.2017. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Patiala, complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard appellant in person and counsel for respondents and also examined the record of the case.

6.      The District Consumer Forum, Patiala has dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that he has accepted the amount for Rs.74,460/-, Rs.15,000/- and US $ 11488 towards full and final settlement of the disputed claim. The District Forum returned the finding that the claim of the complainant has been satisfied, as full and final settlement has been arrived at between the parties and hence dismissed the complaint on this point. The complainant now appellant in person is not satisfied with this finding returned by District Forum and has challenged the same before us. We have examined the  file of the case with the able assistance of the complainant in person and counsel for OPs in this case. Pleadings of the parties have also been carefully examined by us.  This fact is undisputed that complainant paid the amount of Rs 7500 US $  and 3988 US $ on 17.11.2011 and further on 12.08.2011 to OPs and the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- on 30.07.2011. Even OPs have not denied this fact. The case of the complainant was not successful and he could not get job offer in Canada. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs in this regard, whereas OPs put up the case of total denial on their part in this regard. The evidence on  the record needs to be examined by us to come to the correct conclusion. Ex.C-1 is contract of engagement for service entered into between the parties. The terms and conditions of rendering the service by OPs to complainant against consideration are recorded in it in detail. Ex.C-2 is letter written to complainant on 01.12.2011 asking him to supply the documents detailed in it. Ex.C-3 is email dated 05.04.2012 addressed to complainant that approval from SINP authority is awaited and would be communicated to him, as soon as, it was received. Ex.C-4 is email dated 07.06.2012. Ex.C-5 is email dated 17.09.2012. Ex.C-6 is email dated 23.12.2012. Ex.C-7 is email dated 24.12.2012. Ex.C-8 is email dated 20.02.2013. Ex.C-9 is email dated 25.02.2013. Ex.C-10 is email dated 07.04.2013. Similarly, other emails Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-14 are on the record. The payment receipt of Rs.77460/- and Rs.15000/- is Ex.C-15 on the file. Ex.C-16 is receipt of payment of 11488 US $ paid to complainant by OPs. The statement of account of complainant is Ex.C-17 on the file. Retainer Fee Receipts Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-21 issued by OPs. The complainant also sought information under Right to Information Act of this case from OPs On the other hand, the OPs only put up the case that complainant mutually settled the terms and conditions of settlement with OPs without any pressure and received the payments from OPs and executed the consent letters Ex.OP-1 is dated 13.08.2013 for receipt of Rs.77460/-, Ex.OP-2 is dated 13.08.2013 for receipt of Rs.15,000/- and Ex.OP-3 is dated 13.08.2013 for receipt of US $ 11488 towards full and final settlement of the dispute. OPs also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Bajaj Authorized Representative M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd Ex. OP-A on the record.

7.      From critical appraisal of evidence on the record and hearing the contentions of complainant in person and counsel for OPs, we find that complainant voluntarily executed the consent letters Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 in favour of OPs. The complainant has not put up any protest on these consent letters and they are Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 on the record. Particularly, we note this fact that consent letters Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 are dated 13.08.2013 duly executed by complainant in favour of OPs at Patiala. It is nowhere recorded on the file that any undue pressure was put on the complainant, as reflected from these consent letters Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. Particularly, we note this fact that complainant filed instant complaint before District Forum Patiala on 31.12.2015, whereas the consent letters were executed by complainant on 13.08.2013, more than two years ago before filing the complaint. The cause of action of the complaint of complainant, if any, commenced from 13.08.2013, when he executed the consent letters in favour of OPs and received  the amounts of Rs.77460/-, Rs.15,000/- and US $ 11488 from OPs, as full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant has not lodged any complaint anywhere immediately after execution of consent letters dated 13.08.2013. Neither police report nor any consumer complaint was filed immediately by him that these consent letters Ex.OP1- to Ex.OP-3 were not outcome of his free consent. The cause of action, if any, arose in this case on 13.08.2013, when complainant himself voluntarily executed the above said consent letters and received the money from OPs and felt satisfied therewith. The complaint filed complaint on 31.12.2015 after a period of two years from accrual of cause of action on 13.08.2013, hence the complaint is obviously barred by time, as contemplated under Section 24-A of the CP Act, 1986. This point has not been adverted to by District Forum in its order under challenge in this case. It is paramount duty of Forum to examine  the case to find out if it is within limitation or not.

8.      Even touching the case on merits, there is nothing on record to discard the consent letters Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. These are proved to have been validly executed by complainant in favour of OPs. The OPs retained some amount for rendering the services by them. We do not find any ground to set aside  these consent letters Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. Once the complainant has agreed upon the mutual settlement incorporated in consent letters Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 dated 13.08.2013, therefore, he is estopped from backing out of the same. Principle of 'promissory estopple'  is applicable in this case against the complainant. District Forum has rightly come to conclusion that the consent letters Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 operated as estoppel against the complainant to file this complaint. We are in agreement with the findings of the District Forum on this point. Once the dispute has been mutually settled by the complainant with OPs without any pressure or coercion by receiving Rs.77460/-, Rs.15,000/- and US $ 11488, hence he is estopped from re-agitating the matter again. A person cannot be allowed to scratch the same matter again and again. The finding of the District Forum are, thus, affirmed in this appeal by us.

9.      As a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.10.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

 

                                                                (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                               MEMBER

October, 9 2017                                                                  

(ravi)