Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/403/2014

Karnail Singh Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/403/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	17/06/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	08/06/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karnail Singh Saini, earlier R/o H.No.74, Phase-11, Mohali and 113/8, Cinema Gali, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour (H.P), now R/o Flat No.20, Guru Nanak Enclave, Mundi Kharar.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

WWICS Limited, S.C.O. No. 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh–160022, through its Managing Director.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA                PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party for consultancy, pre-landing and post-landing services (Gold Package) for skilled worker program for immigration to Canada apart from other assistances and services for immigration on 04.11.2003, as such he deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the Opposite Party vide Receipt No. 4323 dated 04.11.2003 and also signed the contract of engagement on the same date (Annexure C-1 and C-2 (colly)). The Complainant was also asked to sign a contract of engagement (Skilled Category) (Annexure C-5 colly) with Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation on 04.11.2003. It has been averred that within one month, the Complainant was asked to deposit $1600 (U.S) as professional fee for post landing services, which was deposited by the Complainant vide Cheque No. 017578 dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure C-3, C-4 and C-5 (Colly)). The Complainant was asked to wait, as the process shall take some time, which he patiently did.  It has been further averred that the Opposite Party also handed over a letter (Annexure C-6) to the Complainant, received from the Canadian High Commission, mentioning therein that the applications received 33 months ago were being assessed and it would take time to assess his application. The file number of Complainant was mentioned as B047031541 and the file number given by the Opposite Party was 24403. A fee of Rs.38,000/- and Rs.10,400/- was also deposited by the Complainant with the Canadian High Commission on 09.08.2004 and 23.11.2004 (Annexure C-6 (colly), C-7 and C-8). The Complainant thereafter waited for few days and then approached the Opposite Party to enquire about the status of his case and immigration, but he was told that the said process, being a long one, would take time. The Complainant again waited patiently for the same, but nothing concrete happened. Thereafter, he again approached the Opposite Party, but was sent back with the same answer. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party advised him to continue his case, as there was possibility of his being successful in the time to come. The Complainant agreed for the same, as the Opposite Party was not ready to refund the amount paid by him, if he withdrew his case. During all this process, the Complainant came to know in the month of July, 2013 that the Canadian Immigration has cancelled the backlog cases of pre-Feb. 2008. The Complainant immediately wrote a letter to the Opposite Party for cancelling his authorization and refund the fee of post-landing services to him on 19.7.2013 (Annexure C-9). The Complainant also approached the Canadian Immigration Department and they gave some print outs of the notices of the Canadian Immigration with regard to the cancelling of the pre-Feb. 2008 cases (Annexure C-10 to C-13). The Complainant thereafter communicated with the Customer Care of the Opposite Party through a lot of e-mails regarding the refund of the post landing professional fee of $1600 (U.S) but the Opposite Party informed that only $ 600 (U.S.) could be refunded and that too have not been refunded to the Complainant, till date (Annexure C-14 (colly)). Seeing no end to his woes, the Complainant duly served upon the Opposite Party a legal notice dated 19.5.2014 (Annexure C-15 & C-16). It has been further averred that the Embassy has refunded the fee charged by them to the Complainant i.e. $1286.06 (U.S). The Complainant received the said Cheque after the issuance of the legal notice to the Opposite Party (Annexure C-17). When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party in its reply, has admitted that the Complainant hired its services for consultancy for skilled worker program for immigration to Canada on 04.11.2003 and as such, he deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- in its favour, against which a receipt was issued to him (Annexure R-4). The said payment was made as per the contract of engagement Annexure R-3 which was signed by the Complainant with M/s WWICS Limited. It has been pleaded that the Complainant signed another contract of engagement (Annexure R-2) with M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation on 04.11.2003 and paid USD 1600 in favour of said M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation, which is a separate legal entity. It has been admitted that the fee of Rs.38,000/- and Rs.10,400/- was paid by the Complainant to Canadian High Commission as Visa Processing Fee (VPF). The complete case of the Complainant was filed before the Canadian High Commission and the same was acknowledged by them stating that they have received the application for permanent residence in Canada and have created a file number and further stated that they were assessing the applications received 33 months ago and it would take time to assess the application of the Complainant (Annexure R-5). It has been pleaded that the Complainant was clearly informed that time shall not be the essence of the contract as stated in Clause 8 of the Agreement (Annexure R-3). It has been asserted that the Canadian High Commission terminated all the applications for Federal Skilled Worker filed prior to Feb. 2008 on account of operation of new law in force (Annexure R-6). It has been also pleaded that the Opposite Party has fully provided its services to the Complainant and therefore, was not liable to refund the professional fee which was non-refundable. It was only on account of termination of backlog cases filed prior to Feb. 2008 by the Canadian High Commission; the case of the Complainant got terminated. Further, the Opposite Party is not at all liable to refund the post landing fee as the USD amount was paid vide demand draft in the name of M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation which is a separate legal entity and the same cannot be claimed from the Opposite Party. Moreover, the Opposite Party was not to provide post landing services to the Complainant. It has been denied that the Opposite Party ever informed the Complainant that USD 600 could be refunded. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

7.     A perusal of the file reveals that the Complainant entered into a contract dated 04.11.2003 with the Opposite Party (WWICS) for preparation and submission of his immigration for Canada. The Opposite Party made the Complainant to enter one Agreement (Annexure C-2 colly) with itself and another Agreement on the same day i.e. 04.11.2003 with the Global Strategic Business Consultancy (GSBC), which is available from Pg. 19 to 26 of the paper book. Annexure C-1 and C-4 are the various Receipts vide which the fee was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. Annexure C-17 is the copy of the Cheque of the refund of fee of USD 1286.06 sent by the Canadian High Commission on 14.05.2014, with the submission that the Canadian Government had decided not to process the application of the Complainant due to change of few rules, so the fee paid to the Canadian Embassy was refunded. Annexure C-9 dated 19.07.2013 is an application sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party for the refund of fees paid to it for post landing services. Annexure C-14 (colly) are the copies of the various e-mail communications between the Opposite Party and the Complainant regarding the refund of fee of USD 1600 for the post landing services. Ultimately, the process of e-mail communications did not give any fruitful results.

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that M/s GSBC is a separate independent company having a separate legal entity and accordingly, the Opposite Party is not liable with regard to the same nor liable for refund of the professional fee paid to aforesaid M/s GSBC, as the Complainant has not made the same as party. It has been further stated by Opposite Party that it played its part by preparing, filing and submitting the application of the Complainant before the Canadian High Commission. The case of the Complainant was terminated on account of change in law by the Canadian High Commission, therefore the relevant fee was refunded to him by the Canadian High Commission.

 

9.     As far as the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, to try and adjudicate the present Complaint is concerned, it is evident from Annexure C-2 (colly) and Annexure C-5, which are the Contract of Engagement, that the same were duly signed by the Complainant and the Authorized Signatory of the Opposite Party on the same date i.e. 04.11.2013 at Chandigarh. Therefore, the present Complaint lies very well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

 

10.     In our opinion though the Complainant has not made M/s GSBC a party, still Opposite Party has to prove how the Complainant offered money to a company in Dubai. Pertinently the Complainant did not go to Dubai for getting the contract entered into with said M/s GSBC. Second agreement as per pg. 19 of the Complaint shows that Opposite Party has created another shield for its own benefit. Opposite Party knows better that for what purpose the said M/s GSBC was required.

 

11.     If Opposite Party itself was not competent enough to proceed the case of the Complainant to the Canadian High Commission, then there was no reason for it to get into any kind of contract/ agreement with the Complainant. Evidently, at page no.13 of the Complaint, there is specific mention that the Complainant opted for Gold Package which consists of immigration, settlement and placement services. When the Canadian High Commission itself rejected the entire case of the Complainant, then there was no occasion for the Complainant to get the post landing services. Even the Canadian Embassy has refunded the amount charged by them for the Visa interview. As the post landing services were never provided to the Complainant, therefore, charging of USD 1600 by the Complainant through M/s GSBC is a clear cut proof of deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice. The act of involving its innocent Clients unnecessarily into Agreement with unknown parties for its own selfish motive proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

12.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint should succeed. The same is accordingly, allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

 

[a]  To refund USD 1600 to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

 

13.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from paying costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

14.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08^th June, 2015                          

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER