DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.699 of 2015
Date of institution: 29.12.2015 Date of decision: 26.10.2016
Ms. Monika Sharma daughter of Puran Chand Sharma, resident of H.No.628, Sector 47-A, Chandigarh presently residing at H.No.321, Phase IX, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), Corporate/Head Office, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali (Punjab) through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director Lt. Col. (Retd.) B.S. Sandhu.
2. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), SCO 2415-2416, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Sr. Direct5or Mr. Davinder Sandhu.
3. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), A-31A, 3rd Floor, Near Raja Garden Flyover, Above Yamaha Showroom, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi through its authorised signatory.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present : Sh. G.S. Saini, counsel for the complainant. Sh. K.S. Rupal, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.
Complainant Ms. Monika Sharma daughter of Puran Chand Sharma, resident of H.No.628, Sector 47-A, Chandigarh presently residing at H.No.321, Phase IX, SAS Nagar (Mohali has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The OPs are service provider for immigration and claiming themselves to be experts in immigration. Allured by the advertisement in the newspaper, the complainant contacted OP No.2 for getting nominated occupation (microbiologist) in Australia. On going through her educational qualification, experience and interview, OP No.2 informed the complainant that she fulfils the eligibility criteria for going to Australia under Skilled Worker Category nominated occupation (Microbiologist). Thereafter contract of engagement was executed between the parties. The complainant paid Rs.1,09,551/- to OP No.1 vide cheque dated 21.03.2014 against receipt towards professional fee/retainer fee for preparation, completion and submission of visa application to the Australia High Commission. The complainant also provided to the OPs her documents relating to education, experience and skill. Thereafter, the complainant continued to approach the OP for processing her case but the OPs continued to linger on the matter on the pretext that the category in which the complainant has applied for job takes little time. However, the VETASSESS sent e-mail dated 29.10.2014 to OP No.2 by declaring the skill assessment result of the complainant as negative on account of improper academic qualification and that the complainant having experience of conducted routine tests whereas they require experience of designing and conducting experiments to further their scientific field. Thus the OPs have made false promise to get her nominated occupation of Microbiologist in Australia. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 05.10.2015 to the OPs to refund her the amount of Rs.1,09,551/- but the OPs have not responded to the legal notice. Hence, this complaint for directing the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.1,09,551/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of receipt till actual date of payment; to pay her Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that as per contract of engagement, they are refunding an amount of Rs.47,500/- out of Rs.97,500/- paid by the complainant towards fee. An amount ofRs.12,051/- was paid by the complainant towards service tax which is non refundable. After receipt of documents, the approval was duly taken from the complainant vide e-mail dated 03.06.2014 before forwarding her case to VETASSESS. However, a negative skill assessment dated 10.10.2014 was received on 15.10.2014 and a review was filed before the VETASSESS for giving detailed reasons for giving negative outcome. The VETASSESS vide e-mail dated 29.10.2014 gave the reasons and also advised for re-assessment with hanged nominated occupation. However, the complainant rather than getting re-assessment done filed the present complaint. The OPs have already performed their part of the contract by filing the case of the complainant before VETASSESS and they also filed review application. The complainant had paid an amount of AUD 710 towards fee of VETASSESS which is non refundable and cannot be claimed from the OPs. The amount of service tax has gone to the Government account which is clear from the receipts dated 21.03.2014. After denying the other allegations made in the complaint on merits, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CW1/1, copies of contract of engagement Ex.C-1; receipt dated 21.05.2014 Ex.C-2; receipt Ex.C-3; e-mails Ex.C-4; legal notice Ex.C-5 and postal receipts/acknowledgement Ex.C-6 to C-9. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj their Authorized Representative Ex. OP1/1, copies of contract of engagement Ex.OP-1; cheque Ex.OP-2; application for free assessment Ex.OP-3; e-mails Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5; salary certificate Ex.OP-6; computer generate result Ex.OP-7; e-mail Ex.OP-8; demand draft to VETASSESS Ex.OP-9; online form for skill assessment Ex.OP-10; computer generated receipts Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 and e-mail Ex.C-13.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that the OPs have made a false assurance to the complainant that she can get nominated occupation (Microbiologist) in Australia and took from her a sum of Rs.1,09,551/-. The case of the complainant was rejected by the VETASSESS on the ground of improper academic qualification and having no experience in the related field. Learned counsel has argued that the complainant is entitled to total refund of the amount and also entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs have pleaded that before submitting the documents of the complainant to the VETASSESS her consent was duly taken and they have performed their part of the contract by processing and submitting her case. Learned counsel further argued that even the OPs have also filed review before the VETASSESS who advised for re-assessment of the case of the complainant but the complainant instead of getting re-assessment filed the present complaint which is liable to be dismissed.
7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments as well as oral submissions, we find that the OPs have wrongly processed and submitted the case of the complainant under Skilled Worker Category nominated occupation (Microbiologist). The OPs before processing the case of the complainant should have checked whether she fulfills the criteria for going to Australia under the Skilled Worker Category nominated Occupation (Microbiologist) and should have at the first instance filed her case under the appropriate Occupation. The OPs have processed the case and sent to the VETASSESS and ultimately the case of the complainant was rejected which we find due to the lapse on the part of the OPs. The OPs should have filed the case of the complainant under the occupation Life Science Technician as advised by VETASSESS in the email sent to the OPs i.e Ex.OP-8. Once the OPs have failed to render proper service to the complainant, they cannot retain the service charges taken from the complainant. Thus, it is established that the Ops had acted negligently while processing the case of the complainant thereby committed deficiency in service.
8. However, during proceedings, the OPs have tendered a cheque for Rs.47,500/- which the complainant had accepted from the OPs under protest on 17.05.2016.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,09,551/- (Rs. One lac nine thousand five hundred fifty one only) minus Rs.47,500/- cheque of which had been received by the complainant on 17.05.2016. We also find that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony caused due to negligent act of the OPs and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only). The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the OPs shall be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.10.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 26.10.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
