Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1113

Joginder Singh Nijjar - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS - Opp.Party(s)

Harindar Kumar Aurora

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1113 of 2012

 

                                                Date of Institution: 23.08.2012

                                                Date of Decision:  23.11.2015

 

 

Joginder Singh Nijjar son of S. Didar Singh r/o village Baghela, P.O Umarwalbilla, Tehsil, Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

 

 

                                                                                                                                            …Appellant/Complainant      

                 Versus

 

 

1.      The Branch Manager Worldwide Immigration Consultancy  Service (WWICS Ltd) DLF Centre Mezzanine Floor, Savitri                           Cinema.

 

2.      The Branch Manager World Wife Immigration Consultancy  Service (WWICS Ltd) 21-22, 3rd Floor, Midland Financial                            Centre, Near ICICI Bank, Opposite Hotel Kings, G.T. Road,  Jalandhar.

 

3.      World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services (WWICS Ltd), SCO 24, 15-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

 

                                                                                                                                              ..Respondents /Opposite parties

                                                           

 

First Appeal against order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri. H.S. Guram, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant                   : Sh. H.K.Arora, Advocate

          For the respondents              : Sh.Raman Walia, Advocate

         

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 24.07.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar, partly accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- to complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as lump sum amount of compensation and costs of litigation.  The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.

2.      The complainant Joginder Singh Nijjar has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he entered into contract with OPs for availing their services for his settlement in Canada under self-employed package for Business Immigrants Category and on 09.02.2004, a Contract of Engagement was signed by the complainant  by paying 40,000/- in cash as service fee of the OP/company. The complainant further deposited Rs.36,200/- as Visa processing fee on 08.04.2004, as asked by OP no.2, vide demand draft bearing no.914367 payable to New Delhi. On 08.04.2004, the complainant also deposited a sum of $3000 for providing better facilities on the arrival of the complainant and his family members in Canada, as asked by OP No.2 and 3. The complainant received a letter on 06.09.2004 regarding receipt of his application for permanent residence in Canada and file no.25503/Jal was created and complainant was assured that the process of file with the embassy would be completed within a period of 33 months. On 30.10.2004, OPs no.2 and 3 issued another letter to the complainant stating that case of the complainant was in line and process for interview was pending with the immigration authorities and would be completed within one or two years. The complainant made numerous visits to OP no.2 and 3 to enquire about the status of his case, but they put up the excuses till 20.10.2010. The complainant moved an application for refund of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.36,200/- and $ 3000 as immigration fee and professional fee because the complainant did not have any faith in the OPs. The OPs have not refunded Rs.36,200/- and $ 3000 to the complainant, despite repeated requests. OPs are also liable to pay Rs.10,00,000/-, as compensation for their negligent act and deficient service. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint prayed for above reliefs, besides costs of litigation of Rs.25,000/- .

3.      Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was pleaded by OPs that complainant had retained the services of OPs on 09.02.2004 and had entered into a written contract of engagement regarding submission of his immigration case to Canada. The case of the complainant was duly filed before the Canadian High Commission and same was acknowledged by the Canadian High Commission, vide their letter dated 06.09.2004, and his file number was also received from the Canadian High Commission. As per the above-said letter, it was clearly told to the complainant by the Canadian High Commission that they could not give guarantee whether his application would be processed within 33 months or not, as there was high volume of cases pending. The Canadian High Commission started processing on the application of the complainant and even an interview letter dated 15.06.2011 was received from the Canadian High Commission, wherein interview date was fixed for 14.07.2011. However, before the receipt of the said interview letter, the complainant, vide his letter dated 20.10.2010 has applied for closure of his case. This letter was further forwarded to the Canadian High Commission and it closed the case of the complainant. Since the processing of the case was started by the Canadian High Commission and even an interview was also scheduled, therefore, the visa processing fee of Rs.36,200/- was not refunded by it. The complainant itself had voluntarily withdrawn from the contract, rather the OPs had already performed its duty and got the Canadian High Commission file number along with interview letter of the complainant, thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. It was also cleared by the Canadian High Commission to complainant that there was no guarantee that his application would be processed within 33 months. The complainant had failed to attend the interview schedule by the Canadian High Commission for 14.07.2011, as such, they closed the case of the complainant and therefore the complainant was not entitled to any refund from the OPs. OPs further pleaded that complainant has not impleaded M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy  Dubai, as a party to whom the complainant had paid US$ 3000 for availing post landing services. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been controverted by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 4.     The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.  As against it; OP  tendered in evidence affidavit of Aseem Dhody Branch Manager WWICS Ex.R-A along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Jalandhar, partly accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to refund Rs.40,000/-, as fee paid by the complainant to OPs along with Rs.10,000/-  in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Jalandhar dated 24.07.2012, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also  gone through the record of the case.

6.      Affidavit of complainant Joginder Singh Nijjar Ex.CW-1/A on the record. Ex.C-1 is the immigration package for business immigrants (self-employed) terms and conditions. Ex.C-2 is Contract of Engagement entered by complainant with OPs. Ex.C-3 is Contract of Engagement entered between complainant and Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation. Ex.C-4 is receipt for payment of Rs.3000/-. Ex.C-5 is copy of cheque of Rs.36,200/-, as visa processing fee. Ex.C-6 is copy of receipt of Rs.40,000/-, as fee for service of OPs by complainant. Ex.C-7 is the receipt of amount of Rs.36,200/-. Ex.C-8 is copy of letter dated June 14,2004 addressed to complainant by OPs. Similarly, the documents Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 have also been examined by us.

7.      To refute this evidence, the OPs relied upon affidavit of Aseem Dhody, Branch Manager WWICS Ex.R-A on the record. Ex.R-1 is copy of letter addressed to complainant by Canadian High Commission. Ex.R-2 is letter addressed to complainant with regard to his immigration application. The District Forum declined the request of the complainant regarding refund of the visa processing fee of Rs.36,200/- and $ 3000, which in fact, were received by Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation and Canadian High Commission, who have not been impleaded in this case, as parties. In this case, OPs have already ordered to refund the fee of Rs.40,000/- received by them from complainant for the above deficient act. Deposit of Rs.36,200/- was made with Canadian High Commission and $ 3000 with Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation and there is separate agreement between complainant and Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation Ex.C-3 on the record. There is direct agreement between complainant and Glogal Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation, which is not  party in this case. Deposit of processing fee of Rs.36,200/- is lying deposited with Canadian High Commission and OPs cannot be faulted therefor. OPs have forwarded the application of the complainant by depositing the fee. The counsel for the complainant now appellant referred to one authority of our State Commission in First Appeal No.339 of 2008, instituted on 21.04.2008, decided on 03.04.2012 in case titled as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited & others versus  Gurjinder Singh Jabbal. On the other hand, counsel for OPs now respondents in this appeal, relied upon law laid down by National Commission in Revision Petition no.3335 of 2010, decided on 08.03.2011 titled as  Worldwide Immigration Consultancy vs. Suresh Kumar. The law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission would take precedence over law laid by our own State Commission. National Commission has held in the above authority as under :-

          "Having considered the respective submissions, we must at   once hold that the orders of the forum a below directing the        petitioner company to refund the fee of 1500 U.S dollars          deposited by the complainants with the Worldwide Immigration           Consultancy Services Canada Inc cannot be upheld in any     view of the matter because the said amount was paid by the     complainants under agreements signed by the complainants    under the advice of the petitioner. Since these amounts were not received by the petitioner and were received by a third   party, i.e. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Service Canada     Inc and that they are not privies to the said agreement, no    liability can be fastened on the petitioner for the refund of the said amount. The said Worldwide Immigration Consultancy   Services Canada Inc. has not been made a party in the     complaint and, therefore, we are not aware as to whether there          was any deficiency in service on the part of that company or   what is their stand."

           It is, thus, evident from perusal of authority of National Commission that complainant is not entitled to refund of Rs.36,200/- for visa processing fee to Canadian High Commission and $3000 paid by complainant to Glogal Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation. District Forum has already passed the order for refund of Rs.40,000/- received by OPs now respondents in this appeal, as service fee from the complainant. No cross-appeal has been preferred against the same by the OPs in this case. Consequently, we find no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case and we affirm it.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed.

9.        Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S.GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

November 23,  2015                                                           

(ravi)