DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                      Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2016

                                                  Date of institution:  13.01.2016                                                   Date of decision  :   19.10.2016

Navreet Kaur Bhinder W/o Yadvinder Singh, aged 31 years, resident of H.No.2529, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.   Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. Through its Managing Director/Director, Corporate Office: A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2.   Branch Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Service Ltd., SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

…..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. Arun Batra, counsel  for the complainant.                             Sh. K.S. Rupal, counsel for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant Navreet Kaur Bhinder W/o Yadvinder Singh, aged 31 years, resident of H.No.2529, Phase-7, 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 complainant approached the OPs for permanent residence to Canada and submitted the resume.  It was told to the complainant that the OPs would arrange two sponsors for sponsoring her and her family.  On the asking of the OPs the complainant deposited Rs.1,12,360/- and Rs.33,708/- with the OPs on 31.07.2012, as service retain, vide receipts No. 1012121626 & 1012121628 respectively. It was assured by the OPs that the case of the complainant shall be finalized between 12 to 24 months and as soon as the sponsors are arranged. Accordingly on 31.07.2012 the OPs entered into agreement with the complainant for Federal Processing-Post Provincial Selection, Manitoba PNP skilled category and OPs got signed another agreement with Global Strategic Business Consultancy. Thereafter on 31.08.2012 the complainant deposited USD 4800 in favour of Global Strategic Business Consultancy, on asking of OPs as the sponsors were ready. Thereafter on the asking of the OPs the complainant has spent Rs.10,000/- as IELTS fee and around Rs.15,000/- for availing coaching for the same. The complainant cleared the IELTS but the OPs did not arrange for any sponsors. The complainant, after waiting for one year, wrote a letter on 06.09.2013 about non arrangement of the sponsorship. Thereafter in the month of April 2014, the complainant received a letter dated Nil from the sister concern of the OPs i.e. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, to invest the refund amount in their Real Estate Projects. The OPs invested the amount of the complainant in their Real Estate Project and never bothered to refund the amount, illegally held by them.  On 09.08.2014 the complainant filled a refund application on the asking of the OPs and on 03.09.2014 she received an email regarding approval of refund of amount i.e. USD 4800 and Rs.75,000/- only and assured to pay the payment within a period of 120 days. Thereafter the complainant sent an email to the OPs regarding unfair trade practice and deficiency on their part as they withheld the amount illegally. She also served a legal notice dated 17.12.2014 upon the OPs but in vain.  The complainant received a cheque No.439742 dated 14.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.75,000/- only against the amount of Rs.1,46,068/- and they refused to pay the balance amount, which shows that OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for directing the OPs to pay the remaining amount of Rs.71,068/- along with interest @ 24% w.e.f. 31.07.2012 till actual date of payment; to pay interest on Rs.75,000/- and USD 4800 for the period they retained the amount with them;  Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment, apart from other financial loss and Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges.

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 the present complaint is hit by the Doctrine of Promissory Estopple and the complainant is stopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of the consent letter dated 13.11.2014. As regards to the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that the complainant had retained the services of the OPs under Manitoba Affidavit of Support category. The complainant's documents were forwarded to Canada for obtaining the settlement plan and lot of efforts were made, however, the affidavit of support could not be obtained and in the meantime, the complainant applied for refund and as per the consent letters she has voluntarily settled the matter in dispute and have received the amount in full and final settlement of her claim. Once the complainant had given her consent letter, there was no question of paying the balance amount to the complainant. Moreover out of the amount of Rs.1,12,360/- an amount of Rs.12,360/- and out of the amount of Rs.33,708/- an amount of Rs.3,708/- has been paid as Service Tax by the complainant which is totally non-refundable. After denying the other allegations made in the complaint, the OPs 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 receipts both dated 31.07.2012 Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2, three agreements dated 31.07.2012 Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5, receipts dated 31.08.2012 Ex. C-6, letter dated 06.09.2013 Ex. C-7, letter Ex. C-8, application dated 09.08.2014 Ex. C-9, emails dated 03.09.2014 and 08.09.2014 Ex. C-10 and Ex. C-11, legal notice dated 17.12.2014 Ex. C-12, postal receipt Ex. C-13, emails dated 16.01.2015, 17.02.2015 and 15.06.2015 Ex. C-14 to Ex. C-16 respectively and letter dated 15.01.2015 Ex. C-17.  In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj their Authorized Representative Ex. OP1/1, copy of consent letters dated 13.11.2014 Ex. OP-1 and OP-2, copy of contract of engagement Ex. OP-3, copy of cheque dated 14.01.2015 Ex. OP-4, copy of DD dated 13.06.2015 Ex. OP-5, copies of receipts Ex. OP-6 and OP-7.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that the OPs got the consent letter dated 13.11.2014 i.e. Ex.OP-1 by coercive method and the complainant was pressurized in such a manner that she was compelled to sign the said consent letter. He further pleaded that from the evidence placed on record it is established that OPs after receiving the consideration amounts did not process the application of the complainant. Learned counsel argued that it is established from the act and conduct of the OPs that they had indulged in unfair trade practice, thus complainant deserves to be compensated for the negligent act of the OPs.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel stated that the complainant is stopped by Doctrine of Promissory Estopple and relied on the case law titled as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Gagandeep Singh Monga, Revision Petition No.3612 of 2014 decided on 16.04.2015  wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that “as the complainant had already settled the dispute with the opposite party by receiving Rs.15,000/- and US $2500, he is stopped from re-agitating the dispute already settled by filing a consumer complaint”. Learned counsel submitted that the facts and the circumstance of the above mentioned case law are similar in nature thus the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. He stated that the complainant has failed to establish by placing on record any cogent evidence that proves that the OPs had procured the signature on consent form by using any kind of pressurize tactics. Learned counsel argued whatever refund the complainant was entitled to, the same was refunded. He also argued that the present complaint has been filed after a period of one year from the date of signing of the consent form thus the present complaint is a result of afterthought.

7.             After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments as well as oral submissions, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the OPs.  It is established that after one year from signing the consent form and receiving a sum of Rs.75,000/- alongwith US $ 4800 (Ex.OP1/4 & Ex.OP1/5) the present complaint has been filed. The case law citied by the learned counsel for OPs is having similar facts and circumstance.  .

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case law titled as Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd Vs Gagandeep Singh Monga (Supra), the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.         

9.             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: 19.10.2016    

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                  President

        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member