Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/544/2014

Deepak Kanith - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Nitesh Singhi Adv.

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	544 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	20.10.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	15.06.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Deepak Kainth s/o Vishba Mit, R/o # 67, Top Floor, Phase-10, Mohali, Tehsil & Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  WWICS, Global Resettlement Solutions, SCO 2415-16, 1^st Floor, Near Aroma Hotel, Sec.22-C, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

 

2]  WWICS Global Resettlement Solutions, South East Asia Operations, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali through its authorised signatory.

 

3]  Ms.Mandeep Sidhu, Executive of WWICS, Global Resettlement Solutions, SCO 2415-16, 1^st Floor, Near Aroma Hotel, Sec. 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Sh.Nitesh Singhi and Ms.Priya Singhi, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Raman Walia, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainant, he in response to the advertisement of the Opposite Party No.1 for providing best immigration consultancy, visited the OPs and consulted for Skilled Visa for Australia. The OPs after going through the documents and experience, asked the complainant that his case is fit for the category of Internal Auditor and falls within the category of skilled visa. It is averred that the complainant supplied a set of copies of all documents sought by OPs and applied a skilled visa for Australia in the office of Opposite Party No.1 and also deposited an amount of Rs.56,180/- against receipt. Thereafter, whatever documents were demanded by the OPs, the same were supplied by the complainant apart from paying skill assessment fee of 866 AUD (Australian Dollor).  Later on, the complainant received a call from Vetassess to know about his personal, educational, professional details, which he disclosed. After enquiring from the complainant, Vetassess had decided that the profile of the complainant submitted by OPs does not match with the visa for Internal Auditor and advised the complainant to apply for Certified Public Accountant for re-assessment of visa. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties informed the complainant that his case has been rejected by Vetassess (Australia’s leading vocational education and training (VET) assessment provider) on the ground that the documents and experience of the complainant do not match with the category of skill visa for internal auditor. However, Opposite Party No.3 asked the complainant to apply for CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or for reassessment of the same visa for internal auditor through Opposite Parties for new consultation charges, which was refused by the complainant.  Then complainant demanded the return of his fees paid to the Opposite Parties, which they initially assured to return, but later on refused.  It is pleaded that the Opposite Parties were in the know that the case of the complainant does not fall in the category of internal auditor, but they wrongly applied in said category and as such, they wrongly charged the amount of Rs.56,180/- as well as wrongly asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.866 AUD as skill assessment fee.  Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties but to no avail, hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       Opposite Parties, in their joint reply, maintained that the Complainant had entered into a Contract of Engagement dated 23.8.2013 with the answering OPs-Company (Annexure R-1) for immigration to Australia under Skilled Worker Category-Skills Assessment. It is admitted that the complainant paid an amount of non-refundable professional fee of Rs.50,000/- and an amount of Rs.6180/- is the service tax paid by the complainant to the concerned authorities. As a matter of fact, the payment of AUD 866 was to be paid to Vetassess and the same was non-refundable as per the contract of Engagement, therefore the same cannot be claimed by the Opposite Party Company as the same was non-refundable as per Clause 7 of the Contract of Engagement (Ann.R-1). It is stated that the complainant submitted the complete case filing documents to the company and the complete case of the complainant was duly filed for Skill Assessment as Internal Auditor i.e. under the requisite category by the OPs before the respective Skill Assessment body on 28.9.2013 (Ann.R-5). It is also submitted that the complainant is himself at fault as he has given different version at the time of his interview which was different from the CV provided by him to the Opposite Party Company and the complainant is at fault with regard to the same. It is further submitted that the complainant in his assessment form attached as Ann.R-4 has clearly mentioned that he has worked as Internal Auditor as full time for the past eight years. Moreover, Vetassess vide e-mail dated 25.2.2014 gave a full length explanation regarding the negative outcome (Ann.R-8) wherein it is mentioned that skill level of the applicant is below than is required for nominated occupation. It is pleaded that as the Opposite Parties had performed their part, hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore, the complaint needs outright dismissal.      

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       It is an admitted case of the complainant that he in order to avail the services of the Opposite Parties subscribed and higher their services by paying an amount of Rs.56,180/- to process his application under a skilled visa category for internal auditor in Australia.  The complainant has claimed that the Opposite Parties while advertising their expertise had claimed about their success rate in dealing with the skilled visa category and on such assurance, the complainant asked the Opposite Parties to prepare his case.  The complainant claims to have provided all the relevant documents, demanded by the OPs for such purpose including his educational qualification, his experience certificates and also the assessment fee of 866 AUD payable to Vetassess, which was (Australia’s leading vocational & education and training assessment provider).  The complainant is aggrieved of the rejection of his case by Vetassess and the reasons quoted for the rejection of his case, have been cited for the purpose of laying the blame of his rejection at the door of the Opposite Parties. The complainant has sought the refund of his consultancy fee, which according to him was promised, but was later on refused by the OPs and also sought relief towards harassment and agony on account of deficiency in service, as quoted in his relief clause.

 

6]       The Opposite Parties while defending themselves have however, admitted of the receipt of consultancy fee and also the payment of Rs.866 AUD, which was forwarded in Vetassess for the purpose of assessment of the case of the complainant. However, the Opposite Parties have denied any deficiency in service on their part claiming that the complainant failed to provide the necessary information, which was desired by Vetassess for the fulfillment of his qualifications for the skilled category Visa for Australia.  Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7]       It is evident from the documents placed on record by the complainant that he had paid Rs.56,180/- (Ann.C-1) Retainer Fee Receipt.  The complainant was also provided with the check-list of required documents for skilled assessment along soft copy of application form.  The complainant also provided work experience details as per Ann.C-6 in pursuance of the check-list of the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, while dealing with the case of the complainant, it was observed that the experience quoted by him was not upto the mark and was advised to redraft the same by taking reference provided along with it.  The complainant thereafter, claims to have reverted back to the Opposite Parties as and when they had demanded from him to fulfill the documentary requirements, but evidently his case was rejected and was rather advised to either apply for reassessment or apply for the category of Certified Public Accountant, to which the complainant refused and demanded the refund of his fee of Rs.56,180/- by filing declaration form Ann.C-13 declaring that he did not want his case to be processed any further or for any other category or country.  Though the complainant has claimed that the Opposite Parties promised to refund his amount on his telephonic request, but is aggrieved of their having gone back from their promise.

 

8]       It is also evident from the document placed on record by the Opposite Parties that the complainant had engaged them for skill assessment of skilled worker category for Australia. The terms & conditions of the agreement also mention in Para No.11 that the amount paid by the complainant as Retainer Fee is non-refundable along with the taxes paid.  The Opposite Parties have also claimed through this clause that the fee paid to the skill assessment body too would not be refundable even after the complainant having been declared as disqualified in skilled assessment for Australia. 

 

9]       The OPs while arguing their case, failed to differentiate their responsibilities vis-à-vis the compilation of the complainant’s case to be forwarded for skill assessment, on the basis of the information provided by the complainant as the complainant had alleged that the Opposite Parties while advertising their services, have shouted large claiming that they were professionals in providing such services.  The internal communication of the office of the Opposite Parties (Ann.C-4) clearly indicates that at the time of processing the case of the complainant, it was revealed that the experience certificate with his job duties provided for approval for not upto the mark and it was directed that he be advised to redraft the same, by taking reference from the attached samples and also advised him to provide the experience certificate. Therefore, even after having observed such a short-coming in the case of the complainant, no instructions were issued to him either for redrafting of his application or consulting the samples provided or asking him to provide a better version of his experience certificate so as to fortify his case for qualification for skilled visa category. 

 

10]      The Opposite Parties are found to have not done anything concrete to help the case of the complainant, as no such request for redraft or another experience certificate was made, thus leaving the case of the complainant at the mercy of the Vetassess, even though when they were in full knowledge that the case of the complainant was weak and certainly fail, at the stage of final assessment, which ultimately did happen.  Therefore, it can be safely adduced that the Opposite Parties who were in possession of numerous samples of draft applications did not advice the complainant to re-draft his application nor pointed out the short comings of his experience certificate, leaving him at the mercy of Vetassess and washing their hands of their responsibilities towards him. The Opposite Parties also demanded a declaration form, which was submitted by him on 29.5.2014 vide Ann.C-13.  However, the Opposite Parties failed to refund the consultancy fee, charged from the complainant, even though the complainant had not expressed his desire to avail their services for his application to any other category or country. The Opposite Parties have failed to explain as to what was the reason for seeking such declaration, when they did not intend to refund his consultancy fee.  This act of the OPs clearly indicate that they wanted to keep the complainant in a spin and not pay back the fee charged, as desired by him on account of failure to provide the professional help.  This act of the OPs certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part and for such reasons, the present complaint of the complainant deserves to be succeed against them.  However, we do not find any merit in the claim of refund of assessment fee of 866 AUD, as the same is not retained by the OPs and was forwarded to Vetassess, which is not a party to the complaint.   

 

11]     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

 

[a] The Opposite Parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.56,180/- to the complainant;

 

[b] The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 [b] The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.56,180/- as well as compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

15^th June, 2015           

                                                                               Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.544 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 15th day of June, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member