Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1210

Kulbir Singh Bajwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Goraya

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1210 of 2011

                                                Date of Institution:  10.08.2011.

                                                Date of Decision:            23.02.2015.

 

Kulbir Singh Bajwa son of Jaspal Singh R/o Village Nangal Post Office Usman Shaeed, Tehsil Dasua, District Hoshiarpur.

                                                     …..Appellant/complainant

Versus

 

1.      Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS),   Midland Financial Centre, 3rd Floor, 21-22, G.T. Road, Near      ICICI Bank, Opp. Hotel Kings, Jalandhar through its Branch        Manager.

2.      Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS),   Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali, through its          Manager/Manging Director.

3.      Global Stratigic Business Consultancy Corporation, Executive   Suite, C3-11/05, Post Office Box.8356, Sharjah, UAE, through           its associates WWICS having Head Office at Industrial Area,       Phase-VI, Mohali.

                                                     ….Respondents/opposite parties

 

Appeal against order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

Present:-

 

     For the appellant          :     Sh. S.S. Goraya, Advocate

For the respondents    :     Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate.

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                   The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents herein (the opposite parties in the complaint), assailing the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar (in short, “the District Forum”), dismissing the complaint of the complainant, as barred by time. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the appellant.

2.           The complainant Kulbir Singh has filed the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the succinct averments that the complainant entered into an agreement with OP no.1 dated 15.07.2002 through OP no.1 and OP no.2 with OP no.3 for permanent residence immigration to Canada. The complainant has paid Rs.40,000/- in cash, as professional fee of the company, which was non-refundable, when file number was allotted by the Canadian High Commission, was to be received by OP no.1 to 3. The complainant had to pay US$ 1100 to the OPs in the shape of bank draft in the name of OP no.3 and file number was released to the complainant, then second installment of US$ 1100 was payable at the time of receipt of interview of letter from Canadian High Commission. The complainant was allotted file number B044970045 by the Canadian High Commission in the month of March 2003 and file number was released on the receipt of US$ 1100. The complainant received letter in the year 2008 from OP no.2 with regard to his interview and complainant has paid the second installment of US$ 1100 on 01.08.2008. The interview of the complainant was fixed in the month of September 2008. The complainant was interviewed by the Canadian High Commission in the month of September, but the result was not intimated to complainant by the OPs, till the month of December, 2008. That it was intimated to the complainant in December, 2008 that his PR application has been rejected by the Canadian High Commission. The complainant has not heard anything from the OPs thereafter. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not intimating the result to him. The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment and refund of US$ 2200 and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation from the OPs.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is barred by time. It was averred that complainant was asked to collect the rejection letter from the Jalandhar Branch, vide letter dated 06.10.2008, which is evident. That the OPs had intimated the complainant about rejection of his PR immigration application. The OPs controverted the averments of the complainant with regard to his entitlement to the refund of the amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant, as time barred by virtue of order dated 11.07.2011 under challenge in this appeal. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Jalandhar, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The District Forum has not decided the case on merits, but dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that it has not been filed within period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action in this case. The complaint is, thus, barred by time. We have to examine the substance on the record to reach the conclusion, as to whether the complaint is barred by time or not. We further find that the complainant has alleged that the OPs conveyed the result to him, when he approached them personally in the month of December 2008 to the effect that his PR application has been rejected by the Canadian High Commission. On the other hand, the submission of the OPs is that the complaint is barred by time. That the Canadian High Commission, vide letter dated 25.09.2008, vide Annexure R-1, rejected the case of the complainant. Letter was duly sent to the Branch Office Jalandhar by the Head Office of OP no.2 at Mohali. It is further submitted that complainant was asked to collect the rejection letter from Jalandhar Branch, vide letter dated 06.10.2008 (Annexure R-3). The OPs submitted that complaint can be filed within two years only from the date of accrual of cause of action. That cause of action to file the complaint arose on 25.09.2008, when the application of complainant was rejected by the Canadian High Commission and letter was also sent by the Canadian High Commission at the address of the complainant.  That the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant after two years thereafter and, hence it is barred by time.
6.           The submission of the complainant now appellant is that application of the complainant was rejected by the Canadian High Commission and letter to this effect was received on 03.10.2008 in the registered office at Jalandhar, informing him about the rejection of the application by the Canadian High Commission. We gather from it that the PR application of complainant was rejected by the Canadian High Commission on 25.09.2008. The letter was also sent by Canadian High Commission to the complainant. The affidavit of Aseem Dttody Manager WWICS is on the record that letter dated 25.09.2008 was received from Canadian High Commission rejecting the PR application of complainant. The letter was forwarded to the complainant on 03.10.2008 through Pafex Courier Service. The complainant received the letter on 04.10.2008 and signed on the proof of delivery POD No.714174366. The submission of OPs is that complainant received the information regarding rejection of application on 04.10.2008, on the basis of above courier service. The intimation was also sent by the OPs, vide letter dated 06.10.2008, which must have reached the complainant within a short span of 2-3 days thereby presuming that the he received the letter on 10.10.2008. The complainant has not applied for condonation of delay in the complaint separately, if the complaint is barred by time, and then there is a provision to file application for condonation of delay on sufficient grounds therefor. The delay can be condoned by the Consumer Fora on satisfaction of proof of sufficient cause therefor. Herein, no such application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant on the record with the complaint, hence the submission of the OPs is that complainant signed on the proof of delivery POD No.714174366 regarding receipt of letter through courier Pafex Courier Service. Annexure R-3 has been addressed to the complainant, but it nowhere indicates that it was received by the complainant on the dates, as alleged by the OPs. No such courier receipt signed by the complainant has been brought to our notice on the record by the OPs. On the other hand, there is categorical stand of the complainant in his affidavit on the record that his rejection letter was not conveyed to him nor he received it. That he has not heard anything from the OPs till 20.09.2010. At the most, we can hold as per the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits that in absence of courier receipt, no such knowledge on the above dates can be attributed to the complainant. Consequently, in the absence of any courier receipt having been duly signed by the complainant as alleged by the OPs, it is difficult to hold that complainant got the actual knowledge of this rejection letter on 06.10.2008, as alleged by the OPs. There is no proof of these letters having been delivered to the complainant on the above dates, as per the pleadings of the OPs. Consequently, we hold that the complaint has been filed within a period of two years by the complainant from the date of his knowledge of rejection of PR application from the OPs on December 2008. The complaint was filed on 18.10.2010 within two years from the December 2008, when knowledge can be attributed to the complainant of rejection of his PR application. The order of the District Forum is, thus, not sustainable in this appeal holding it to be barred by time.
7.           In the light of above discussion, we set aside the order of the District Forum dated 11.07.2011 holding the complaint to be within time and remit this case to the District Forum Jalandhar for its adjudication on its merits after recording the evidence of the parties, as permitted by the Act. The parties are directed to appear before District Forum Jalandhar on 10.04.2015. Record be sent back to the District Forum Jalandhar, so as to reach there well before the date fixed.
8.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.          The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February 23, 2015.                                                             

(MM)