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

                                  Consumer Complaint No.495 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          01.10.2015

                                              Date of Decision:            07.06.2016

Jaspreet Singh son of late Sadhu Singh, resident of House No.363, Phase-1, Mohali.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., having its corporate office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali through its Chairman and Managing Director Col. B.S. Sandhu.

2.     Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., A-31/A, Third Floor, Near Raja Garden, Flyover, Above Yamaha Showroom Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi through its Chairman and Managing Director Col. B.S. Sandhu.

3.     Global Strategic Business Consultancy having its Head Office FZCO, office No.315-316, West Wing-3, Airport Free Zone, Dubai (UAE) (service to be effected through Devinder Singh Sandhu, Sr. Director, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), having its office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali (Punjab).

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Varinder Arora, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Dinesh Kumar, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:

(a)    refund him Rs.8,43,949/- being principal amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt till actual realisation.

(b)    pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of physical harassment as well as mental agony.

(c)    pay him Rs.33,000/- as costs of litigation.

                The complainant approached OP No.1 for assessment of eligibility criteria for permanent settlement in Canada under ‘Skilled Worker Category’ and accordingly contract was executed with OP No.1 on 28.10.2011 between the complainant and OP No.2. The complainant paid Rs.1,30,000/- to the OPs vide two cheques which were duly encashed in favour of the OPs. The OPs issued receipt dated 28.10.2011 for both the cheques. Thereafter fresh contract of engagement dated 28.10.2011 was executed between the complainant and OP No.3 at Mohali. The complainant was conveyed by OP No.1 that he has been short listed for employment. However, the complainant was unaware that whether he has been employed in Canada and what was his job profile. A fresh contract of engagement was executed under ‘Job Offer – Arrangement Employment Option Category’ between the complainant and OP No.3. As per this contract, the complainant was to pay US $ 13000 to OP No.3 in two installments i.e. US $ 5000 and US $ 8000.  Upon execution of fresh agreement dated 28.10.2011 with OP No.3 fresh retainer/service charges were demanded which the complainant had to pay i.e. US $ 750 to OP No.3 on 11.11.2011. First installment of US $ 5000 was paid by the complainant on 21.11.2011 in Indian currency by way of two cheques favouring CENTRUM DIRECT LTD. for Rs.1,27,912/- and Rs.1,25,000/- both dated 21.11.2011.  After this the OPs conveyed to the complainant that they have received job offer letter from Canada and fresh contract of engagement has to be executed between complainant and OP No.3. On 02.07.2012 fresh contract was executed for ‘Federal Processing Post Provincial Selection’.  The complainant was delivered offer letter dated 01.07.2013 by the OPs stating that he has been selected with Fairburn Tire & Battery Ltd. having its office in Saskatchewan, Canada. The Ops also demanded balance amount of US $ 8000 which was paid by the complainant in two installments of US $ 4000 on 27.08.2013 and 25.10.2013 respectively.  Thereafter, the complainant has been regularly pursuing his case with the OPs but the OPs failed to secure visa for him.    The OPs further demanded further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for getting the employment for the complainant from Canada under different category with execution of fresh contract of engagement but the complainant refused to this offer.  Till date the OPs neither have returned his money nor provided any service to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 

 2.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed reply in which they took preliminary objections that the case of the complainant is   pending awaiting decision of the Saskachewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP) authorities for release of job offer approval of the complainant.  The case of the complainant was retained under the National Occupation Classification (NOC) 6211 (Retail Trade Supervisor) and the documents of the complainant were sent to Canada on 19.07.2012. The job offer was received from the M/s. Fairburn Tire and Battery Ltd. The employer uploaded the vacancy of NOC 6211 before SINP authorities and the said offer approval is pending decision of the SINP Authorities.  The OPs are nowhere deficient in service nor there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the case of the complainant is pending.  As per Clause 8 (IV) of the Contract of Engagement it has been specifically agreed that once the job offer/AEO is received, nothing is refundable.  The OPs had been duly performing their part of the contract right from the time when the complainant retained their services.  On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant was fully aware that he had engaged the services of the OP firstly for obtaining job offer/AEO and thereafter on the basis of said job offer after its approval by SINP authorities for filing his case for permanent residency under skilled worker category.  The complainant vide Clause 9 of the contract dated 28.10.2011 was clearly told that it shall be the earnest endeavour of the OPs to process the case of the complainant, however, time shall not be the essence of the contract.  Thus, denying and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-13.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consist of affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj, their authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.

6.             Availing of job placement services for arranging offer of employment in Canada by the complainant from the OPs is not disputed. As per contract of engagement Ex.OP-5 dated 02.07.2012 duly executed between the parties, the complainant has admittedly paid a sum of Rs.8,43,949/- to  the OPs for procuring job offer letter as well as post landing services and deposit of said amount is not disputed by the OPs. As per the complainant, as per Ex.C-11, 01.07.2013 the complainant has got offer for job on behalf of M/s. Fairburn Tires & Battery Ltd. for position of Retail Trade Supervisor but after receipt of such offer letter he has never heard from SINP authorities/OPs regarding the status of his employer and has not been granted any visa to visit Canada even after a lapse of three years till the filing of the present complaint and even during the pendency of the present complaint.  Therefore, the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice by not giving him status of his job offer and visa subsequent thereof.

7.             During the course of proceedings, the OPs have offered to refund Rs.75,000/- as well as 9300 US $ by way of two  cheques produced in the Forum on 26.05.2016. The counsel for the complainant has refused to accept the same as the said refund is not as per terms of agreement.   In order to appreciate it will be relevant to reproduce Clause 9 governing the refund of the contract for engagement Ex.OP-5:

“I. The service provided by the company being professional in nature, the entire fee for the services provided is non refundable. II Taxes (if any) paid shall not be refundable. III. In case associated company is unable to obtain visa from Province of Saskatchewan after submission of relevant documents, total fee paid by the client will be refunded to the client after deduction of 25% of the total amount payable as per this agreement. IV. Once job offer and nomination letter is received from SNIP authorities, nothing is refundable.. … xxxxxx”

8.             As per the OPs once the job offer has been received and conveyed to the complainant, as per Para 2 of the preliminary objections, the matter is pending decision of the SINP  authorities and is awaited and, therefore, the complaint is premature. Further as per the OPs the status of employer of the complainant showing job offer pending for NOC 6211 is attached with the reply as Ex.OP-4 to corroborate the contention of the OPs.  Further the counsel for the OPs has drawn our attention to client’s undertaking duly signed as a part of contract of engagement Ex.OP-5, wherein the complainant has accepted the condition that “the company shall not be held responsible for any delay occurring in processing period regarding the issuance of nomination letter due to backlog of cases or any reason whatsoever.”

9.             Since the OPs have processed the case of the complainant successfully, got him offer of job from the concerned employer and now the matter is pending for consideration with SNIP authorities for which there is no time frame agreed between the complainant and the OPs, therefore, the OPs are not liable for any delay occurring at the hands of SNIP authorities  and such delay is beyond the control of the OPs.

10.           Since the offer of job letter and the matter being pending with the SNIP authorities is very much in the knowledge of the complainant, and further as per complainant’s own undertaking that the OPs are not liable for any delay occurring in processing period regarding the issuance of nomination letter by SNIP authorities, therefore, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

11.           Though the matter of the complainant is pre mature still the offer made by the OPs for refund of Rs.75,000/- and 9300 US $ is still open to the complainant for consideration and the complainant is at liberty to approach the OPs for receiving these amounts.

12.           The complaint being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

June 07, 2016.    

                          (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

               Member