DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.101 of 9.3.2016
Decided on: 22.3.2018
Gobind Singh Nanreh son of Gurcharan Singh resident of House No.460, Ward No.14-B, Near Kakarwal Bridge, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. WWICS (Worldwide Immigration Consultancies Service Ltd.) A-12,Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali, Punjab, India through its M.D.
2. WWICS (Worldwide Immigration Consultancies Service Ltd.)SCO 11, 1st Floor, Above Spice office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala District Patiala through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Nikhil Batta, Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh. S. S. Sidhu, Advocate, counsel
for opposite parties No.1&2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Gobind Singh,complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)
2. In brief, the case of the complainant that on 14.2.2015, complainant and his father visited the office of OP no.2 for applying permanent residence in Canada. Cheque bearing No.002967 dated 14.2.2015 for an amount of Rs.1,68,540/- withdrawn at branch Allahabad Bank, Dhuri was given on behalf of the complainant. An agreement was also executed between the complainant and OP no.2, regarding applying/case filing of P.R. in Canada. The OP issued a retainer fee receipt bearing No.1032151033 dated 14.2.2015, file No.C14-1107889, in the name of the complainant. After passing of two months, the complainant time and again inquired the matter from Op no.2 for not receiving the job offer letter. Every time OP no.2 put the matter off on one pretext or the other. On 8.6.2015, the complainant, wrote letter to Branch Manager, WWICS, Patiala for refunding the amount of Rs.1,68,540/- but no heed was paid by it. Thereafter, he wrote complaint before SSP, Patiala and got registered the same vide diary No.5/4CPRC/PTL dated 24.6.2015.There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,68,540/- alongwith interest @18% per annum till its realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and also to pay Rs.22000/- as cost of litigation expenses.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version. It is stated that the complainant approached the OPs and entered into a contract of engagement dated 24.2.2015. It was clearly mentioned in clause 3 of the said contract that the normal time period to obtain a job offer might take up to 24 months and further 10 months for an employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) approved Labour Market Impact assessment. However, the complainant started asking for refund after 4 months of retaining the services of the OPs and voluntarily withdrew the entire process of his immigration case by submitting a refund application dated 8.6.2015. It is denied that the complainant ever paid an amount of US $5500 to the OPs. It is stated that out of amount of Rs.1,68,540/- an amount of Rs.18540/-was paid as service tax, which is non refundable. However, the complainant is not entitled to any refund in view of clause 3,8(i) & 9 of the contract dated 24.2.2015. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The Ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bajaj, Authorized representative of M/s WWICS Ltd. alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Admittedly the complainant had hired the services of the OPs for getting permanent immigration to Canada on job offer from the Canadian Employer, having deposited a sum of Rs.1,68,540/-vide copy of retainer fee receipt dated 14.2.2015,Ex.C3. A contract of engagement dated 24.2.2015,Ex.OP1 was also executed between the parties for the said purpose. No doubt, as per the said agreement, the OPs were to provide the job offer letter to the complainant within 24 months but this fact also cannot be ignored that the OPs were duty bound under the said agreement to initiate the process of obtaining the job offer letter and immigration visa immediately after receiving the requisite fee and documents from the complainant. As per the complainant the OPs did nothing for getting the job offer letter for months together after receiving the fee and documents. Therefore, he did not find it appropriate to wait unnecessarily and left with no alternative and on 8.6.2015 requested the OPs for the refund of the fee. The OPs have not placed on record any document to show that they had applied for a job offer for the complainant in Canada. Since the OPs have failed to adduce any document to prove the factum of applying for a job for the complainant in Canada , therefore, they at their own will cannot withhold the whole amount deposited by the complainant on the plea that they have to obtain a job offer / nomination certificate within 24 months from the date of agreement . But at the same time, this fact can also not be ignored that the complainant himself had withdrawn from the contract, therefore, he is not entitled to get the refund of the whole amount deposited by him with the OPs. Facing with this situation that both the parties have not adhered to the terms and conditions of the contract, therefore, we are of the view that the end of justice would be met if the OPs after deducting some amount, paid by the complainant, shall refund the remaining amount to the complainant. Equity demands that cut of 20% out of the amount deposited by the complainant should be ordered. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund Rs.1,34,832/- ( Rs.1,68,540-20%) to the complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @7% per annum on the said amount, from the date of this order till realization. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 22.3.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
