BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.208 of 2015
Date of institution: 06.05.2015
Date of Decision: 04.11.2015
Harpreet Singh Malhotra son of Jagmohan Singh resident of c/o Hakam Singh, H.No.3, Near Gurudwara Pathshahi 6th, VPO Sudhar, District Ludhiana.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. WWICS Corporate Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its owner cum-Managing Director Ltd. Col. B.S. Sandhu.
2. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, FZCO Office No.315-316, 3rd Floor, West Wing-3, Dubai Airport, Free Zone, Dubai (UAE) Dubai through its authorised signatory Mr. Parvinder Sandhu.
OP No.2 given by the complainant vide statement dated 15.05.2015.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Amrainderjit Singh Sandhu, cl. for the complainant.
Shri K.S. Rupal, counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 already given up.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) refund him Rs.7,01,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
(b) pay him Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation for mental agony and physical inconvenience etc.
(c) pay him Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.
The complainant approached the OPs in 2011 for work visa to Canada. Mr. Arvinder Singh an Executive of the OPs apprised him regarding permanent residence avenue and sponsoring programme in the State of Manitoba (Canada) and further asked the complainant to submit resume. The complainant was informed that the Ops would arrange two sponsors for sponsoring the complainant and his family. Three different agreements were signed between the complainant and OP No.2 on 31.03.2011. As per the agreements, the complainant had paid Rs.70,000/- as retainer ship fee and US $ 4500, US $ 6000 to the OPs. The complainant received an e-mail from MPNP supporter that his application has been received and would be reviewed to ensure it is complete and eligible for assessment. The complainant continued his correspondence with the OPs regarding the status of his case. The complainant was informed by an executive of the OP that Gurmit Singh Gill and his wife Baljit Kaur Gill of Canada are the sponsors for the complainant and his family. The complainant asked the OPs about the name, place and contact of the sponsors but no suitable reply was given by the OPs. The complainant finally received letter dated 09.10.2014 from Manitoba Provincial Nominee Programme that their application does not meet the requirements of the programme etc. The application of the complainant was rejected. The complainant approached the OPs who assured that they would further arrange suitable sponsors so that his application is approved within 60 days. The complainant thereafter visited the OPs number of times buy did not get any suitable response. The OPs are not refunding the amount paid by the complainant and also not returning the original experience certificate of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice to the OPs but inspite of that the OPs have not refunded him the amount. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. OP No.1 in the preliminary objections of the written statement has pleaded that the complainant himself is at fault as due to some family feud between the complainant and his uncle, the sponsor (his uncle) denied knowing him before the Manitoba Labour and Immigration Officer when the case of the complainant was taken up for scrutiny. The rejection is solely attributed to the complainant. This fact has been admitted by the complainant in his letter dated 25.11.2014. The complainant entered into two contracts with OP No.1 on 31.03.2011 and one with OP No.2. The complainant paid Rs.70,000/- towards professional fee for the first contract and Rs.65,000/- towards the second contract. As per the third contract the complainant paid US $ 10300 as per Clause 9 (IV) of the contract. The case of the complainant was duly filed and two affidavits were obtained by the OPs. However, the case was rejected on 09.10.2014 due to family dispute. As per the contracts the complainant is entitled to Rs.35,000/- towards second contract and US $ 7800 towards the contract with OP No.3. This Forum does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint because as per Clause 15 and 19 of the agreements all the disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the company. On merits, the OP No.1 has denied any deficiency in service on its part and sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-11.
4. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Shri Rajiv Bajaj, its authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-13.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.
6. The case of the complainant is that, with an intention to settle permanently in Canada as a skilled worker, he approached the OPs in the year 2011 for availing their services. As per the complainant he has signed three agreements with OP No.1 and OP No.2 and paid the demanded amount of Rs.70,000/- as retainer ship fee and US $ 4500, US $ 6000. The agreements duly signed between the parties are not disputed. The payment of amounts as stated above by the complainant to the OPs is not disputed. The dispute in the present complaint is that the OPs have failed to provide the agreed services as per agreements and, therefore, the case of the complainant has been rejected by the Immigration Authorities of Canada causing financial loss to the complainant besides mental agony and harassment.
7. As per the complainant the OPs have received all the documents from him alongwith requisite fee and they were to submit his documents to the concerned authorities and follow up the visa process after arranging two sponsors who were to be residents of Manitoba. As per the complainant the OPs have arranged two sponsors namely Gurmit Singh Gill and his wife Baljit Kaur Gill and informed about the sponsorship to the complainant vide details of the sponsors as mentioned in Ex.C-5 and C-6 and submitted the documents to the concerned authorities. The authorities have rejected the case of the complainant on the ground that the sponsors have not supported the case of the complainant and, therefore, the case of the complainant is rejected on account of adaptability factor as the signatory of affidavit of support has not supported the case of the complainant before the visa authorities. Once the case has been rejected by the authorities due to acts of omission and commission of the OPs, the complainant demanded the refund of the deposited money but instead of giving the refund the complainant was made to write in his own handwriting for review of his case on the ground that the sponsor being a relative has not supported his case due to some family feud and now the family misunderstanding has been cleared and the said letter dated 25.09.2014 has been accepted by the OPs as is evident from Ex.OP-1. Still the OPs have failed to file any review application causing further financial loss, mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Therefore, disbelieving the promises of the OPs, the complainant has sought refund of the amount.
8. As per agreement dated 31.03.2011 Ex.C-3 one of the duties of the OPs was for providing affidavit of support besides helping the complainant to obtain visa from the Canadian High Commission and for that purpose they have charged the agreed fee. It has been mentioned in the contract that the OPs shall be responsible for preparing the case for immigration, assist in the completion of all required documents, supporting evidence, submission of case, handling of all visa correspondence and monitoring the case to ensure timely issuance of permanent visa. In the present complaint, the material on record shows that the OPs have sent the case of the complainant for grant of permanent visa on 02.06.2014 as is evident from Ex.C-7 i.e. plethora of number of e-mails exchanged between the parties. The complainant has also got a copy of the affidavit of support Ex.C-8 by one Gurmit Singh Gill and Baljit Kaur Gill who have described the exact relation to the complainant as their personal friend. However, the said supporters have not supported the case of the complainant before the visa authorities and the visa authorities vide Ex.C-8 rejected the case of the complainant. The disputed point in the present complaint is that once the OPs have provided the affidavit of support to the complainant, it was the duty of the OPs to ensure that the signatory to the affidavit of support really support the case of the complainant before the visa authorities. The OPs have failed in this regard to get the affidavit of support from reliable persons as the counsel for the complainant contends that the affidavits of support procured by the OPs are fake. It is admitted that the affidavit of support has been arranged by the OPs. The OPs have further indulged into unfair trade practice when, the OPs have asked the complainant to write in his own handwriting and change the relationship of persons giving affidavit of support to the complainant from friend to a relative and further have failed to show even acted upon such a hand written request which the complainant has written under forced circumstances. The OPs subsequently cannot pass the buck to the complainant for arranging the affidavit of support by their relatives with whom they have some alleged family feud and because of that their case has not been supported by Gurmit Singh Gill and Baljit Kaur Gill the signatories to the affidavit of support and thus the act of the OPs in not providing the affidavit of support of respectable and reliable person to the complainant, is an act of unfair trade practice having indulged by the OPs causing rejection of the case of the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that the OPs have filed review petition. The act of the OPs is contrary to the obligation which they have taken under Clause 1 of the duly signed agreement. Thus, the act of the Ops of indulgence into unfair trade practice by alluring the complainant to shell out huge amount for providing immigration services and upon failure not to refund the deposited amount is an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service writ large on the part of the OPs. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves compensation due to the acts of omission and commission of the OPs.
9. During the course of arguments the OPs have offered to make refund of part payment of Rs.35,000/- and US$ 7800 but the said offer was not acceptable to the complainant and, therefore, we have decided the matter on merits, on the basis of record and pleadings.
10. Vide his statement dated 15.05.2015 the complainant claimed no relief against OP No.2 and had given up OP No.2 from the array of the OPs as all the payments have been received by OP No.1 for himself and on behalf of OP No.2. OP No.1 has proved to be deficient in service and has indulged in unfair trade practice while rendering the services to the complainant and the role of OP No.2 was to start after the OP No.1 has actually rendered the serves to the complainant in getting the visa. No service is rendered by OP No.1. Thus, no relief is awarded against OP No.2.
11. As stated above, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant. In Surindera Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and another, IV (2010) CPJ 1999 (NC), the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission was to the effect that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury suffered by the complainant. The complainant is further entitled to refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest. For the purpose of award of interest on the deposited amount we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in brig. B.S. Taunque (Retd.) & others Vs. M/s. Sangeetashree Builders & Developers International Pvt. Ltd. & Others, 2014(2) CLT 401.
12. We take the support of latest judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. Aditya Kumar Vs. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., 2014(1) CLT 348 for awarded compensation to the complainant.
13. The complaint is allowed against OP No.1 with the following directions:
(a) to refund to the complainant demanded amount of Rs.7,01,500/- (Rs. Seven lacs one thousand five hundred only) with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the respective deposits till realization.
(b) pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
14. Compliance of the above order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
November 04, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
