BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.528 of 2015
Date of institution: 12.10.2015
Date of Decision: 16.06.2016
Najam Ali son of Mohd. Rafi, resident of House No.340, Phase 3B1, Mohali, corresponding address village Sangeeta, P.O. Padampura, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Ltd. Col. B.S. Sandhu, Chairman and Managing Director Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., office A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali.
2. Jatinder Singh, Branch Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22, Near Aroma Hotel, Chandigarh.
………. 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 Vijay S. Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.
Shri K.S. Rupal, counsel for the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) refund him Rs.1,01,124/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till realisation.
(b) pay him compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of physical harassment as well as mental agony.
(c) pay him Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.
The complainant who was working as Nursing Attendant in Max Hospital, Mohali, approached the OPs in the year 2014 for getting visa under Skilled Worker Category for Canada. After consultation, the OPs assured the complainant that the complainant would easily get visa and can get PR under Skilled Worker Category Quebec Canada and the charges for the same would be Rs.3.5 lacs. The complainant was initially asked to pay Rs.1,01,124/- which includes Rs.90,000/- as counsel fee for pursing the case of the complainant. The rest of the amount was to be paid by the complainant on receiving visa. Thereafter Contract of Engagement was executed on 25.02.2014. The complainant was assured that he would easily visa under the Skilled Worker Category in March, 2014 intake session. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.1,01,124/- alongwith relevant documents to the OPs on 04.03.2015. After that the complainant enquired about his visa application status from the OPs and it was informed that the OPs have failed to apply the visa application in March, 2014 due to shortage of time and March 2014 session intake was closed. The OPs assured the complainant that they would file his visa application in next intake session. In the first week of April, 2014 the complainant was informed that his via application file has been applied and it would take six months to complete the required formalities for Quebec Canada. The complainant approached the OPs in September, 2014 but was not given any satisfactory reply. The complainant visited the OPs on 11.12.2014, 20.01.2015, 05.02.2015 but the OPs kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. On 15.03.2015 the OPs called the complainant to visit their office regarding the status of his visa. The complainant visited the OPs on 15.03.2015 and he was informed that his visa application file has been rejected and handed over a rejection letter dated 21.10.2014 issued by the Quebec Immigration, Canada. The complainant checked the reason for rejection of application and came to know that his visa application was rejected due to fulfillment of capping system in that session intake as the capping system was fulfilled in the month of August, 2014 and visa application of the complainant was submitted after that. Draft of 775 Canadian Dollar in favour of Quebec Immigration which the complainant got prepared was also returned to him as his visa case was not submitted to Quebec Immigration. The complainant visited the OPs for refund of the amount and return of his original documents but the OPs offered to the complainant to file his visa application again in the next session but the complainant refused to this offer. In July, 2015 the OPs had returned all the documents but refused to pay the amount. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs but no reply was given to the same. With these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed reply in which they took preliminary objections that the case of the complainant was filed before the Quebec Authorities on 22.05.2015 well within time. However, the Quebec Program was capped on 12.08.2014 due to this, the case of the complainant has been returned on 21.10.2014. The OPs are no where deficient in service nor there is any unfair trade practice. As per Clause 11 (2) of Contract dated 25.02.2014, in case the program is closed/capped by the authorities, the fee paid by the complainant was to be refunded after deduction of 40%. Accordingly an amount of Rs.54,000/- would be paid by the OPs to the complainant. Out of the amount of Rs.1,01,124/- paid by the complainant, an amount of Rs.11,124/- has been paid as service tax which is non refundable as per Clause 3 (d) of the contract. On merits, the OPs have pleaded that the complainant was fully eligible for applying under Quebec Programm. The complainant did not submit the documents in time and an e-mail dated 12.03.2014 was sent to him for submission of documents and when the case of the complainant was filed the March, 2014 session intake was closed. The complainant was intimated about approval of refund of Rs.54,000/- vide e-mail dated 07.07.2015 but the complainant has refused to accept the same and filed the present complaint. Thus, denying and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-13.
4. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj, their authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
6. The complainant is Nursing Attendant working in Max Hospital, Mohali and approached the OPs for immigration to Canada in the skilled workers category. The contract of engagement dated 25.02.2014 Ex. C-1 is not disputed. In pursuance of the agreement, the complainant has paid initial sum of Rs.1,01,124/- and the remaining was agreed to be paid on receipt of visa. The payment of said amount is not disputed. The complainant was made to understand that his case would be processed and documents would be submitted to the authorities concerned for consideration in the quota for the year ending 31.03.2014. Accordingly, the complainant submitted the documents, however, there was some defects and deficiencies in the document which the complainant removed and re-submitted the documents as per e-mail dated 12.03.2014 of the OPs. Since there was some delay in submission of documents and processing the same, the case of the complainant could not be filed for consideration for the year ending 31.03.2014. On the consent and approval of the complainant, the OPs have agreed to process the case of the complainant for the next sessions 2014-2015. As per the complainant since he has completed all the documents and submitted the same to the OPs before 31.03.2014, therefore, as such all the documents were considered for filing his case for the year 2014-15. Though the OPs have orally intimated the complainant that his documents have been submitted in April, 2014 still till 05.02.2015 he has not received any intimation or satisfactory reply from the OPs regarding status of his case. Finally on 15.03.2015 the OPs have informed him about the rejection of his visa application and handed over the rejection letter dated 21.10.2014 issued by Quebec Immigration, Canada on the ground that the capping of skill workers category has already been fulfilled by end of August, 2014 and, therefore, the case of the complainant is not considered.
7. The complainant has raised two issues in the present complaint; (a) as to why the OPs have filed his case beyond August, 2014 whereas all the documents were in their possession in the first week of March, 2014 itself; (b) as to why the OPs have withheld the information of rejection of his visa application from him for more than six months when the letter dated 21.10.2014 issued by Quebec Immigration Agency was well within their possession.
8. Perusal of the evidence of the OPs does not reveal the date and mode of filing of visa documents of the complainant in the month of April, 2014 or subsequent thereof till August, 2014. Thus, it is ample clear that the OPs have not filed the case of the complainant upto August, 2014 whereas it was the bolden duty of the OPs as per terms of contract of engagement i.e. the Clause-1 duties of the company to handle all correspondence with the processing officers pertaining to the clients case, intimate the requirements sent by Associated company during the processing of the case, assist the client in keeping the file uptodate and advise the client about any subsequent changes in the Quebec Immigration laws and any subsequent condition applicable to meet the selection criteria. The Ops in this case have failed to discharge their obligation of keeping themselves abreast of the capping time line fixed by the Quebec Immigration Agency and have filed the case of the complainant at their own whims and fancies without showing the actual date of filing of the case. Thus, the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and have kept the complainant in dark throughout.
9. Further once the OPs have received the rejection letter dated 21.10.2014 from the Quebec Immigration Canada, they should have intimated the complainant immediately without any further delay whereas it is proved on record that the OPs have conveyed the rejection letter to the complainant on 15.03.2015 after a delay of about 5 months. Here again the OPs have failed in discharging their duties as enshrined under Clause-1 of the contract Ex.C-1 and have thus indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Thus, on both the counts the complainant has proved the act of the OPs and we are able to satisfy the concerns of complainant raised on both the counts on the basis of documents on record. Thus, it is quite obvious that the OPs have failed to play pro active role as required under the contract of engagement and have deprived the complainant of its valuable right of consideration before the immigration authorities by charging necessary fee and by not submitting timely documents for consideration. The act of the Ops is thus act of clear cut case of deficiency in service as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Aditya Kumar Vs. M/s. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., 2014(1) CPJ 391.
10. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:
(a) to refund to the complainant the Rs.1,01,124/- (Rs. One lac one thousand one hundred twenty four only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till actual realization.
(b) to pay to the complainant lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this 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.
June 16, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
