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

========

Mr.Rishampreet Singh s/o Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh, House No.2587, Sector 69, Mohali.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.    The Chairman and Managing Director, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali.     

2.    The Branch Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                                      ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL,                                PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL,                 MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Ravi Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Raman Walia, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant executed a Contract of Engagement on 16.6.2009 with the OP. The OP company charged Retainership Fee of Rs.25,000/- vide receipt No.101208, dated 16.6.2009 and Professional Fee of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.201209, dated 28.6.2009 from the complainant. The complainant was also directed to pay 400 US Dollars to Global Strategic Business Consultancy and Canadian Dollars 1100 (INR 50000) to Receiver General for Canada. The OP company charged all these amounts from the complainant even before submitting his application for Permanent Residence in Canada on 31.7.2009. It is alleged that after charging such a hefty amount, the OP company did not scrutinize the application of the complainant thoroughly and simply forwarded the same to the Canadian High Commission, as a consequence thereof they sought a number of documents/papers and information from the complainant vide letter dated 29.9.2009. The complainant duly complied with all the requirements of Canadian High Commission and submitted the requisite documents on 10.1.2010. It is further alleged that the OP company failed to provide the required professional assistance such as to prepare a submission report and presenting as to how the complainant has met the criteria, to provide thorough training under their Interview Preparation Course. Consequently, the application of the complainant rejected by the Canadian High Commission vide their letter dated 26.7.2010 only on account of unprofessional, callous and casual approach of the OP Company and without fulfilling any of the duties contained in the Contract of Engagement. The OP company did not bother to respond to the letters and legal notice sent by the complainant asking them to refund the fee amount and return the original documents. Hence this complaint.       

2.             OPs filed their reply and stated that the complainant entered into two Separate Contract of Engagement  i.e one with the answering OP and second with M/s GSBC, Dubai. The complainant is claiming refund of 400 US $ paid to the said company, which has not been impleaded as a party. Moreover it has clearly been mentioned in Clause 7 of the Contract of Engagement that the fee charged by the Immigration Authority is payable to the Immigration Authorities in accordance with the current Immigration Regulations of the respective countries and the said fee could not be sought to be refunded from the answering OP. It is further replied that OP company has already performed their part of the Contract and it is the complainant who violated the various clauses of the Contract of Engagement. The Canadian High Commission, New Delhi declined the Permanent Resident Visa for Canada on the basis of conclusion that the complainant had misrepresented his work experience in order to establish that he met the requirements of the Ministerial Instructions. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           The main dispute of the complainant in this complaint that he fulfilled all the conditions as per the Contract of Engagement (Annexure-1) laid down by respective company under the Bronze Package (i.e. pre landing assistance) and paid Rs.25,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + 400 US Dollars + 1100 Canadian Dollars (Annexure-2 to Annexure-5 respectively), as demanded & directed by the OP company as a requirement to get the permanent Visa under skilled category from Federal of Canada. The complainant further stated that the OP company charged all these amounts before submitting his application on 31.7.2009, for permanent residency to Canada (Annexure-6), violating Clause 1-a of the said Contract i.e. duties of the company, whereby to provide the required professional assistance, for which OP company has charged hefty fee without assessing the complainant. Consequently, the application of the complainant has been rejected by Canadian High Commission vide letter dated 26.7.2010 (Annexure-11). Thereafter the OPs have neither refunded the amount nor bothered to return his original documents, submitted by the complainant at the time of processing the Visa, which indicates gross negligence and unfair trade practice on their part.

6.           On the contrary, the OP company while refuting all the material allegations leveled against them by the complainant held him (the complainant) solely responsible for the rejection, because of false statement as well as mis-representation of the documents submitted by the complainant which the OPs have forwarded while processing Visa to the Embassy. The OPs clarified that both the parties were bound by various clauses of the said Contract of Engagement (Annexure R-1), whereas the complainant has violated Clause 2(b) (d), Clause 8 i (b), 8(iii) that “All the documents submitted by the client for onward submission to CHC/etc are believed to be genuine and would be forwarded to concerned Authorities in Good faith and believing it to be true and genuine” and clause 11(a) of the said Contract, in which it has been categorically specified that, the complainant is not entitled to any refund, if he provides false information.

7.           Further more, the OP stated that the complainant had entered into two separate contracts of engagement, one with the answering OP company and second with M/s GSBC, Dubai (the said company has not been impleaded as a party) (Annexure R-2), to whom he has paid 400 US Dollars, for which they have no liability. Moreover, the payment of 1100 US Dollars was made as Visa Application Fee in favour of Receiver General for Canada (Annexure R-3). Similarly as per clause 7 of the Contract of Engagement, the fee paid to Immigration Authority is not refundable.

8.           The OP company has already performed their part of the contract. It was Canadian High Commission, New Delhi, who has declined the permanent residence visa for Canada, on the basis of mis-representation of work experience provided by the complainant in order to establish that he met the requirements of the Ministerial Instructions. Therefore, the complainant himself has violated the various clauses of the said Contract of Engagement. 

9.           In view of the foregoing, it has been observed that the contract between the parties was to get permanent resident Visa, which was rejected by the concerned Embassy vide letter dated 26.7.2010 (Annexure-11) addressed to the complainant, in which it has been mentioned that “Section 40(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts”. Further, the work experience as a Computer Instructor since April 2007 with ICAII submitted by the complainant alongwith other documents (Annexure-9) was verified by the Canadian Embassy and when enquired from the said Institute & calls made to know about the credentials of the complainant, it was found that the employees of ICAII did not know the complainant and the information given by ICAII as to the number of faculty members, subjects taught by the complainant, did not match the information provided by the complainant.  In the same very letter dated 26.7.2010, it has been categorically stated that “the evidence available to me to conclude that you misrepresented your work experience in order to establish that you meet the requirements of the Ministerial Instructions. The misrepresentation of this material fact could have induced an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as visas could have been issued to you and your family member included in your application, had this misrepresentation not been discovered”. 

10.         From the above discussions, it indicates that sole reason for the rejection of the Visa by Canadian Embassy is the mis-representation of the documents presented by the complainant. Therefore, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint, which could hold OPs liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part as has been stated by the complainant. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

11.          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.