Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/705

Ravinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramanjeet Singh

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

 

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                               PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.705 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 26.04.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision:   12.03.2015

 

 

Ravinder Kaur w/o Ajit Pal Singh r/o H.No.101, Mohalla Nai Sarian, War No.3, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                                                                                                                    …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

1.       World Wide Immigration Consultancy Service Ltd., Head Office A-       12, Industrial Area Phase VI, Mohali (SAS Nagar), through Col.B.S     Sindu (Retired) Managing Director.

 

2.       Pawan Kumar, Director SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

 

                                                          …..Respondent /opposite parties

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                       :         Sh.Ramanjit Singh, Advocate.

          For the respondents                  :         None

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

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 21.02.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that complainant entered into a contract with the OPs, who are immigration consultancy in Canada, as they observed the complainant for fulfilling the terms and conditions of immigration to Canada. That complainant gave draft of Rs.30,000/-, vide draft no. 060329 of State Bank of Patiala, as processing fee to the OPs. The complainant also submitted the photocopies of  her all educational testimonials including the copies of passport, marriage certificate etc. That on 01.06.2010, the complainant paid Rs.1100$ (about Rs.50,000/-) through demand draft in the name of Receiver General for Canada. On 12.06.2010, the OPs demanded Rs.20,000/- and complainant paid the same through demand draft bearing no. 981193 of State Bank of Patiala, branch Bassi Pathana. The OP no.2 gave assurance to the complainant to send her case to Canadian Embassy for immigration to Canada within 24 hours and also gave temporary file no. 60124 to the complainant.  The OP had not applied the case file for immigration of complainant to Canadian Embassy within 24 hour and rather applied it on 23.06.2010 after 11 days delay, despite the fact the complainant submitted the entire documents and fee to OPs on 12.06.2010. The case file of the complainant was rejected due to change of Rule on 26.07.2010. The OPs have not filed the case of the complainant within time and kept it with them for 11 days from 12.06.2010 to 23.06.2010 and thereby the complainant was deprived of her educational admission in the training in Canada on account of deficient  service on the part of the OPs. That complainant approached the OP No.1 on 20.07.2010, to ascertain the status of her file No.60124 and she was apprised to ascertain that her file has been returned due to change of Canadian Rules. The Director of the OP No.2 failed to return the amount to complainant of 1100 Canadian dollars. The complainant moved for return of the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by her from the OPs, but they declined to return it. The complainant has filed the complaint against the OPs with the prayer that Ops be directed to pay the refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to her along with interest and compensation of Rs.1 lac and Rs.50,000/- for her mental harassment.

2.      Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 filed joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, in as much as complainant entered into contract on 12.5.2010 with the OPs. The complainant agreed that OP would not refund the fee and she will not be entitled to refund of full fee, even in case of change of immigration rules after filing the case. The case of the complainant was duly filed by the OPs on 23.6.2010 under National Occupation Code (NOC) and other instructions to the Canadian High Commission. The Canadian High Commission changed the immigration rules on 26.6.2010 and introduced 29 Priority Occupation List (29 POL), which were demanded in Canada at that time. That on account of change of rules by the Canadian Government on 26.6.2010, the complainant became ineligible for the applied course and her case was returned by the Canadian Embassy on above score. It was further averred that rules were changed by the Canadian Government, while file was in transit from 23.6.2010 to 26.6.2010 without any fault of the OPs. The OPs also requested the Canadian High Commission to review the case of the complainant, vide letter dated 06.08.2010, but it was not accepted, vide letter dated 20.08.2010 from the other side. On 07.10.2010, the OPs advised the complainant, vide e-mail to file judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada against adverse decision of the visa officer. The OPs relied upon Clause 11(a) of the agreement that the OPs would not liable to refund the entire fee, if it becomes impossible to meet the objective of the agreement, due to reasons like client having medical problems, having civil charges, national security reasons of the destined country. The OPs contested the complaint of the complainant even on merits on the above referred grounds. The OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Ravinder Kaur complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of contract of engagement Ex.A-1, copy of demand draft Ex.A-2, certificates regarding qualifications Ex.2-A to Ex.2-C, certificate from Bibi Bhani Panchayati Girls College (Fatehgarh Sahib) Ex.2-D, certificate of bachelor of Arts Ex.R-E, copies of professional fee receipts Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-4, Ex.4-A, copy of letter to Branch Manager Ex.A-5, copy of letter dated 6.09.2010 Ex.A-6, copy of reply of letter dated 6.09.2010 Ex.A-7. As against it, OPs tendered evidence copy of contract of engagement Ex.R-1, copy of letter dated 1.7.2010 Ex.R-2, copy of detailed result Ex.R-3, copy of news release Ex.R-4, copy of letter dated 6.8.2010 Ex.R-5, copy of letter dated 20.8.2010 Ex.R-6, copy of letter dated 6.10.2010 Ex.R-7, copy of letter dated 10.7.2010 Ex.R-8, copy of extract of resolution Ex.R-9, affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj Ex.R-10. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order dated 21.02.2011 of District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

4.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and none has appeared on behalf of respondents at the time of arguments in this appeal and have also examined the record of the case.        

5.      The factual backdrop of the case is not much in dispute. It is an admitted fact that complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs for her immigration to Canadian Embassy for vocational training after submission of the requisite fee and her educational testimonials and other documents. We need not refer to those aspects of the case, which are not actually in dispute in this case. We have to examine the point of the controversy in this case. The simple point of controversy in this case is that the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, because she completed the entire process of the file including payment of the fee and submitted the complete file to the OPs on 12.6.2010. The contention of the complainant now appellant is that the OPs kept the file with them and actually sent it to Canadian Embassy on 23.6.2010 after 11 days delay without any valid explanation on their part. The submission of the complainant is that in the meantime, the rules were changed by the Canadian High Commission making her ineligible for immigration to Canada on the applied ground. That had the file been submitted in time by the OPs, then she would have been found eligible and qualified for immigration to Canada for her admission in the educational institute thereat. She has emphasized this point in the arguments that on account of retention of the file by the OPs from 12.6.2010 to 23.6.2010 for 11 days without any valid explanation, she has suffered immense loss in this case resulting in her deprivation for immigration to Canada on account of the change of the rules in the meanwhile by the Canadian High Commission on 26.7.2010. The case of the complainant is founded on delay of 11 days on the part of the OPs because the rules were changed by the Canadian High Commission in the meantime and her file was rejected on 26.6.2010 due to change of the rules. The respective pleadings of the both parties have been examined by us on the record. The affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 has also been duly taken into account. Other documents of the complainant Ex.A-6 to A-7 have also been examined by us on the record. Similarly, we have also carefully examined the contract entered into between the parties Ex.R-1 on the record laying down the terms and conditions of the agreement, Ex.R-2 is the letter addressed to the complainant on 2.7.2010, Ex.R-3 is shipment facts of the file of the complainant, Ex.R-4 the news release issued from Toranto on 26.6.2010 changing the rules. Ex.R-7 is reconsideration of the case of the complainant sent by the OPs, Ex.R-9 is resolution of the OPs authorizing Rajiv Bajaj , Estate Officer to pursue the case, Ex.R-10 affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj authorized person of the OP/company.

6.      From conclusion of the above-referred evidence on the record and the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, we find that the complainant deposited the full fee for processing her case on 12.6.2010. The OPs took 11 days to complete the file and sent it to FedEx for shipment to Canada. The District Forum found no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs on the ground that some days were required by the OPs to complete the file and to submit it to the Canadian Embassy after properly arranging it. Our attention has been drawn to Clause 11(a) of the agreement on the record by the counsel for the OPs in this case. Clause 11(a) of the agreement lays down that company would not refund any of the total fee and shall be entitled to full payment : once the client signed the contract and the client does not acquire proficiency in English and French language and  does not attain sufficient score in IELTS or the case gets rejected by the Canadian High Commission. We are concerned with this fact primarily whether the change of rules by Canadian High Commission in the meanwhile can tantamount to any deficiency in service by the OPs. We find that the OPs could not foresee the change in the rules at the time of submission of the file by them to Canadian Embassy on 23.6.2010. This fact could not have been presaged by the OPs in any eventuality at that time. Consequently, the fact of the change of the rules is not within the province of the OPs and absolutely lies out of their domain. Consequently, we are of this view that 11 days time could not be said to be inordinate delay because the OPs/company had to take some time to arrange the file after examining it and then file and then make its shipment to Canadian Embassy. Accordingly, on this point, we are in agreement with the findings of the District Forum under appeal in this case finding no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in this case. Whatever fee was refundable under the agreement, the same has already been refunded by the OPs to the complainant. The order of the District Forum cannot said to be infirm or illegal in our view and the same is maintained in this appeal.

7.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed by affirming the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case.

8.       Arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

9.      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

 

March 12   2015.                                                            

(ravi)