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

                                  Consumer Complaint No.105 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  23.02.2016                                         Date of decision   :  08.03.2017

Preetinder Singh Sodhi son of Barjinder Singh Sodhi, r/o H.No.397, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

                                  ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., having its Corporate Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali through its Managing Director.

                                                      ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

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

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

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Preetinder Singh Sodhi has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant who is Engineer by profession was desirous of immigrating to Canada and for this purpose he approached the OP in the year 2014. The OP on the basis of educational qualification and work experience of 2 years of the complainant assured him that his visa file would be cleared easily and asked the complainant to pass IELTS Test which was an essential requirement. The complainant on the advice of the OP appeared for the IELTS and cleared the same in July, 2014. After clearing the IELTS the OP informed the complainant that it can help in applying for permanent residence in Canada as a Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) as the complainant is a qualified B.Tech Engineer and holds requisite work experience as well. On the asking of the OP, the complainant deposited Rs.84,270/- (Rs.75,000 + 9,000 + 180 + 90) vide cheque dated 01.08.2014 with the OP alongwith all the required documents. Thereafter, the OP asked the complainant to further deposit US $ 203.40 for Assessment of Education Credentials (ECA) which was deposited by the complainant on 11.09.2014. Thereafter, the educational assessment report was given by WES. Contract dated 01.08.2014 was also executed between the parties. The OP thereafter informed the complainant that it has moved his file for visa processing with the Canadian Embassy and the same shall take about 3-4 months time.  On the asking of the OP, the complainant deposited further amount of US $ 1300 with Global Strategic Business Consultancy (GSBC) which is a partner of the OP, as post landing service charges. Contract was also entered into between the complainant and the GSBC. The complainant was informed that this amount alongwith any other amount would be refunded back to him in case there is some problem with the visa process or the visa is rejected.  The application of the complainant for permanent residence visa was rejected vide letter dated 16.02.2015 which was received by the complainant on 14.04.2015. The ground for rejection was that the complainant is not eligible for the applied category. This shows that the OP had misguided the complainant and made him apply in the category which he was not eligible to apply. The complainant approached the OP and sought refund of the amount to which the OP refused. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him Rs.84,270/- alongwith US $ 1300; pay him Rs.1,00,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OP by filing reply, in which it has been pleaded that the case of the complainant was duly prepared and file on 28.10.2014 well within time. However, the Federal Skilled Worker Category Program was capped and due to capping of the said program, the case of the complainant has been returned vide letter dated 16.02.2015. Thus, the OP is not deficient in providing service and has also not adopted any unfair trade practice. The complainant retained the services of the OP under Federal Skilled Worker Category executing a contract of engagement dated 01.08.2014 for professional services. As per Clause 2 (a) of the contract dated 01.08.2014 the complainant was to submit his complete documents for ECA within 15 days of signing of contract whereas the complainant submitted the documents on 07.08.2014 alongwith demand draft of CAD $ 203.40. After scrutiny of documents, the WES reference number was generated on 16.08.2014 and the documents of the complainant were sent on 25.08.2014 for obtaining his ECA and positive assessment result was also obtained from WES on 11.09.2014. The complainant was to submit the case filling documents with the OP within 15 days from receipt of ECA report whereas the complainant submitted the same on 04.10.2014 which after scrutiny were found deficient and email dated 07.10.2014 in this regard was sent to the complainant. The complainant failed to submit the case filling documents within time but as a goodwill gesture the OP processed, prepared and filed the case of the complainant and even got an authentication e-mail dated 18.10.2014. However, the case of the complainant was rejected. The complainant also engaged the services of M/s. GSBC by executing a contract of engagement dated 01.08.2014 and paid an amount of US $ 1220 vide receipt dated 25.09.2014. M/s. GSBC is a separate and distinct legal entity which has not been arrayed as a party, therefore, no liability can be fastened to refund to the said amount on the OP. Out of Rs.84,270/- paid by the complainant an amount of Rs.9,270/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant which is non refundable as per clause 3 (d) of the contract.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1;  copies of B.Tech degree of the complainant Ex.C-1; copy of  the points table Ex.C-2; IELTS certificate Ex.C-3; fee receipt Ex.C-4; educational assessment report Ex.C-5; assessment report Ex.C-6; contract of engagement Ex.C-7; deposit slips Ex.C-8; GSBC contract Ex.C-9; rejection letter dated 16.02.2015 Ex.C-10; e-mails Ex.C-11; letter to the OP Ex.C-12 and copy of letter dated 13.07.2015 Ex.C-13. In rebuttal the OP has tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj, its authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1; copies of case filing covering letter dated 28.10.2014 Ex.OP-1; case capping letter dated 16.02.2015 Ex.OP-2; computer generated contract of WWICS Ex.OP-3; payment receipt Ex.OP-4; fee of WES Ex.OP-5; letter to WES dated 16.08.2014 Ex.OP-6; document sent to WES dated 25.08.2014 Ex.OP-7; positive assessment report from WES Ex.OP-8; emails Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10; computer generated contract of engagement with GSBC Ex.OP-11 and payment receipt Ex.OP-12.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that the OP has made a false assurance to the complainant that he can get permanent residence in Canada as a Federal Skilled
Worker (FSW) being qualified B. Tech.
Engineer  and took from him a sum of Rs.84,270/- vide cheque dated 01.08.2014. The case of the complainant was rejected by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the ground that the complainant was not eligible for the category under which he applied.   Learned counsel has argued that the complainant is entitled to total refund of the amounts and also entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has pleaded that the present case is a case of capping by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada   on which the OP has no domain. Learned counsel further argued that the complainant had not submitted the documents well within time, however, as a goodwill gesture; the OP processed and submitted the case of the complainant. Thus, the OP has performed its part of the contract.

7.             After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments as well as oral submissions, we find that the OP has wrongly processed and submitted the case of the complainant under Federal Skilled Worker category being qualified B. Tech Engineer.  The OP before processing the case of the complainant should have checked whether he fulfills the criteria for permanent residence in Canada under the Federal Skilled Worker category and should have at the first instance filed his case under the appropriate Occupation. The relevant portion of letter dated 16.02.2015 addressed to the complainant by Federal Skilled Worker Centralised Intake Office is reproduced as below:

“Since you did not provide evidence that you have an Arranged Employment Offer, or evidence that you are a candidate under the Ph.D stream, you do not meet the requirements of the Ministerial Instructions and your application is not eligible for processing.”

8.             The OP has processed the case and sent to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada   and ultimately the case of the complainant was rejected which we find is due to the lapse on the part of the OP. Once the OP has failed to render proper service to the complainant, they cannot retain the service and other charges which its partner have taken from the complainant. Thus, it is established that the OP had acted negligently while processing the case of the complainant thereby committed deficiency in service.

9.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.84,270/- (Rs. Eighty Four thousand two hundred seventy only); amount equivalent to 1300 US $ as on 14.08.2014  when the complainant deposited this amounts with the GSBC. We also find that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony caused due to 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 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the OPs shall be liable to pay 9% interest per annum on the total cost awarded.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 22.02.2017 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: 08.03.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member