| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 182 of 08-02-2016 Decided on : 07-03-2017 Preet Mohinder Kaur aged about 30 years W/o Manmeet Singh, S/o Sukhminder Singh, R/o 461 Model Town, Phase-1, Bathinda. …...Complainant Versus Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., 2739-A, 2nd Floor, Grover Complex, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/ Branch Manager/Incharge Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., South East Asia Operations, A-12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Mohali 160055 through its MD/Chairman/Authorized Signatory
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. A.S. Sekhon, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Sh. A.S. Chahal, Advocate. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Preet Mohinder Kaur, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Bathinda and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she was interested to go to abroad for permanent residence. As such, she approached opposite party No. 1, who do work to provide PR (Permanent Resident) to the customers who are interested to go abroad, for getting all information regarding the same in the month of October, 2014. The opposite party No. 1 allured the complainant and her husband Manmeet Singh and gave information about the same. They conveyed to do all the work through their another subsidiary i.e. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, (here-in-after referred to as 'GSBC') Head Office, FZCO, Office No. 315-316, West Wing 3, Dubai Airport Free Zone, Dubai (UAE). The opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to submit the required documents such as ID Card, Address Proof, Qualification proof etc., and to deposit a sum of Rs. 84,270/- as retainer fee. It was assured that they will arrange Canadian Visa under Federal Skilled Work Program (FSWP) for the complainant shortly. As such, being allured by the opposite parties, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 84,270/- on 19-10-2014 with opposite party No. 1 but at that time, opposite party No. 1 did not issue any receipt and requested the complainant to collect the same later on. The opposite party No. 1 took signatures of complainant and her husband on some printed forms and some blank printed forms. It is pleaded that after about one month, the opposite parties again raised a demand of Rs. 94,000/- from the complainant alleging another fee. Accordingly, complainant deposited another sum of Rs. 94,000/- with opposite party No. 1 in the month of November, 2014. The complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,78,270/- with opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 conveyed the complainant that if the opposite parties failed to arrange Canadian Visa under FSWP, then they will return whole of the amount deposited by her as per her demand. It is alleged that thereafter complainant continuously contacted the opposite parties with regard to arrange Visa under FSWP for the complainant but after repeated visits by the complainant, opposite parties conveyed that they cannot arrange Visa under FSWP on the pretext that she does not fulfill all the formalities. As such, opposite parties conveyed that they can arrange another Visa for the complainant under Express Entry Visa for Canada (EE Visa) in place of FSWP for the complainant. Accordingly complainant agreed for the same and again submitted all the required documents as per demand of the opposite parties. Thereafter opposite parties asked the complainant to deposit more amount under above said Visa under Express Entry and got deposited another sum of Rs. 28,090/- on 5-5-2015 which was paid by the complainant through her bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank, Bathinda. Thereafter another sum of Rs. 17,100/- on 12-6-2015 and 12,636/- on 23-6-2015 was paid by complainant from her account maintained with HDFC Bank, Bathinda. It is further alleged that complainant time and again contacted the opposite parties as well as through e-mail. The opposite parties gave unsatisfactory reply. They failed to arrange VISA under EE Scheme. The opposite parties neither arranged Visa nor refunded the amount paid by complainant. They failed to complete their promise. Lastly, opposite parties flatly refused to refund the said amount to the complainant. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental tension and agony; Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses and refund the amount of Rs. 2,36,096/- deposited by her alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. Hence this complaint. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In joint written reply, opposite parties raised preliminary objections that it is a case of non-submission of case filing documents by complainant for processing of immigration case. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has failed to submit the documents pertaining to Educational documents of principal applicant and spouse, employment documents of principal applicant and spouse, police clearance certificate, birth certificate, marriage certificate etc., fully detailed in e-mail dated 21-9-2015 sent to her. Inspite of repeated reminders, the complainant did not submit the required documents. As such, her case could not be filed under Express Entry Programme. E-mail dated 6-10-2015 was also sent to the complainant in this regard. The complainant herself is at fault and is trying to take advantage of her own wrongs. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the case is also a case of non-submission of IELTS with requisite bands. The complainant had earlier engaged the services of the opposite parties for filing her case under Federal Skilled Worker Category on 11-10-2014 and also entered into contract of engagement dated 9-10-2014. She paid Rs. 75,000/- (excluding Service Tax of Rs. 9270/- which is non-refundable). The complainant also engaged the services of M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai, for availing pre-landing and post landing services by executing a contract of engagement dated 9-10-2014 and paid US$ 1300 to the said company. The complainant for her case for Federal Skilled Worker Category was required to obtain 6.0 bands in each module which she failed to obtain till December, 2014. It was thereafter that she was asked to apply under Express Entry Program as the initial selection criteria for the Express Entry and the Federal Skilled Worker Category was the same. The complainant although obtained the required bands in her IELTS result dated 12-3-2015, but she failed to submit the required documents as per checklist due to which her case could not be filed under Federal Skilled Worker Category. It is further pleaded that complainant paid an amount of Rs. 75,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 9270/-) for Federal Skilled Worker Category which was adjusted in the Express Entry Category. The complainant has further paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 2100/-) for the assessment of the Educational Credential from World Education Services, Canada for her spouse. The complainant under Express Entry System Program, submitted her educational credentials on 8-11-2014 alongwith demand draft of CAD $ 203.40 and her documents were sent to WES (Assessing Authority of Canada) on 15-11-2014 and positive assessment result was received. The complainant failed to submit her case filing documents due to which her application under EES Program could not be lodged. The opposite parties have already got positive skill assessment of the complainant. Therefore, as per Clause 11 (a) and (c) of contract, the complainant is not entitled to any refund. The complainant has paid an amount of US$ 1300 to M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai which is a separate legal entity and this amount cannot be claimed from the opposite parties. It is also pleaded that once the complainant had retained the services, the company started providing services from day one even before the case was filed. The services are briefed as under :- a) Counseling and advising the client about immigration category in which he/she retained the services and the Immigration procedure to be followed. b) Providing and counseling the client about Immigration package and the check list of documents. Explaining the client in detail about the documents and the forms that are necessary for filing Immigration Application. c) Advising and guiding the client in preparation of documents and forms in proper format as per the requirement of Immigration Authorities etc., Documents such a Experience documents, Education documents etc., It is further pleaded that opposite parties had been performing their part of contract right from the time when she had retained the services and was advised and guided about necessary documents for preparing and filing the case. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties at any point of time. It is also revealed that out of the amount of Rs. 84,270/- an amount of Rs. 9270/- and out of the amount of Rs. 17,100/- an amount of Rs. 2100/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant which is totally non-refundable as the same has gone into Government account as is clear from the receipts dated 9-10-2014 and 1-7-2015 wherein the details of service tax have been mentioned. This amount cannot be claimed from the opposite parties. The complainant in actual has paid an amount of Rs. 90,000/- to the opposite parties. The last legal objection is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with this complaint because the complainant has agreed in Clause 23 of agreement dated 9-10-2014 that all the differences and disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the Arbitrator appointed by the company. On merits, it is denied that opposite parties allured the complainant. It is pleaded that M/s. GSBC, Dubai is not a subsidiary of the opposite parties. It is separate and distinct legal entity. It is reiterated that complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 84,270/- out of which an amount of Rs. 9270/- has been paid as Service Tax which is not refundable. It is denied that no receipt was issued or signatures of complainant or her husband were obtained on blank printed forms. Regarding payment of Rs. 94,000/- it is pleaded that this amount was deposited by complainant with M/s. Paul Merchants Limited, Chandigarh for conversion of the said amount into US$ to pay the fee of US$ 1200 of M/s. GSBC, Dubai with whom the complainant had entered into a separate contract. It is denied that complainant deposited Rs. 1,78,270/- with the opposite parties. It is rather mentioned that complainant has paid Rs. 75,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 9270/-) to the opposite parties and US$ 1300 equivalent to Rs. 94,000/- to M/s. GSBC, Dubai. It is denied that complainant was told that in case of failure to arrange Visa, the amount will be returned. It is mentioned that as per Clause 11 (a) of the contract, it was clearly told to her that the services being provided by the opposite parties are professional in nature. The fee is non-refundable. It is denied that complainant paid Rs. 28,090/. Regarding payment of Rs. 17,100/- it is pleaded that this amount was paid by complainant towards assessment of fee of her spouse Manmeet Singh. The amount of Rs. 12,636/- was paid by complainant towards fee of WES for getting her educational credentials assessment from WES. It is reiterated that complainant failed to clear her IELTS with requisite bands for FSWP which was closed in December, 2014 and failed to submit required documents for Express Entry Program. As such, she is not entitled to any refund and complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of her claim, complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 9-6-2015 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of e-mail (Ex. C-2), photocopy of fee receipt (Ex. C-3), photocopy of results (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6) and photocopy of account statements (Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence photocopy of e-mail (Ex. OP-1/1 & Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of contract of engagement (Ex. OP-1/3 & Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of IELTS result (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of positive assessment result (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of receipt (Ex. OP-1/7 & Ex. OP-1/8) and affidavit dated 20-09-2016 of Rajiv Bajaj. The opposite parties have also submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of the opposite parties. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that although complainant executed two different agreements (Ex. OP-1/3 & Ex. OP-1/4). Ex. OP-1/3 is with opposite party No. 1 and Ex. OP-1/4 is in the name of 'GSBC', but practically and in substance both these agreements were with opposite party No. 1. Ex. OP-1/4 is also produced by the opposite parties. The payments received for these agreements are also admitted by opposite parties. Both the agreements were executed in the office of opposite parties at Bathinda on the same day i.e. 9-10-2014. Vide agreement Ex. OP-1/4, pre-landing services were also to be provided which are already covered under the agreement Ex. OP-1/3. These facts sufficiently proves that both the agreements were got executed by opposite party No. 1 at Bathinda. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that complainant has paid Rs. 84,270/- and Rs. 94,000/-. The opposite parties have not denied this fact and have rather admitted the same. The complainant has also alleged that the opposite parties have failed to provide any service despite payment of all settled amount. Instead of proving rendering of services, the opposite parties have pleaded that complainant has failed to submit documents pertaining to education and employment etc., The documents relied upon by the opposite parties will belie this averments of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have produced copy of letter (Ex. OP-1/6) whereby the complainant was forwarded original copy of the educational credentials by World Education Services Canada. Alongwith this letter, copy of letter from WES was also forwarded. It also proves that complainant has submitted all these documents. Otherwise there was no question of verification of documents. The opposite parties have also produced on record copy of letter Ex. OP-1/1 to prove that complainant has not submitted documents but in this letter, the complainant was again asked to submit documents regarding education, employment and number of other documents. This letter is of dated 21-9-2015 whereas documents of complainant were already got verified vide letter Ex. OP-1/6 on 15-12-2014. No other evidence has been produced by the opposite parties to prove that they have performed their part as per agreement or that the complainant was at fault. As the opposite parties have failed to provide service, therefore, complainant be accepted. To support these submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has cited :- (i) Decision of Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, rendered in First Appeal No. 272 of 2015 decided on 15-07-2016 case titled M/s. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., and others Vs. Gagandeep Singh (ii) 2014 (2) CPR (NC) 795 case titled World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. and another Vs. Jareena Job P. (iii) 2004 (1) CPJ 357 case titled Anil Wahi Vs. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services (iv) 2016 (2) WBLR 239 case titled Ratan Kumar Majumdar Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services & Anr. (v) 2014 (1) CPJ 391 case titled Aditya Kumar Vs. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has reiterated his stand as taken in the written reply and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant has failed to submit documents pertaining to education qualification, employment documents and police clearance certificate etc., The complainant was also asked vide e-mail dated 21-9-2015 (Ex. OP-1/1) to submit documents. Inspite of reminders, the complainant did not submit documents. As such, her case could not be filed under Express Entry Program. Another e-mail dated 6-10-2015 was also sent to complainant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that moreover it is a case of non submission of IELTS with requisite bands. Earlier the complainant engaged the services of the opposite parties for filing her case under Federal Skilled Worker Category (FSWC) and entered into contract of engagement. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 9270/- which is non-refundable). The complainant also engaged the services of M/s. GSBC, Dubai, for availing pre-landing and post-landing services by executing another contract (Ex.OP-1/3) and paid an amount of US$ 1300 to that company. The complainant for her case of FSWC was required to obtain 6.0 bands in each module but she failed to obtain till December, 2014. In the meantime, the FSWC program was scrapped in the month of December, 2014. Thereafter, complainant applied under Express Entry Program as the initial selection criteria for express entry program and FSWC was same. Although the complainant obtained required bands in her IELTS dated 12-3-2015, but thereafter she failed to submit the required documents as per check list due to which her case could not be filed under FSWC. The complainant has paid another amount of Rs. 15,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 2100/-) for assessment of educational credentials from World Education Services, Canada for her spouse. The complainant under express entry system program submitted her educational credentials on 8-11-2014 alongwith demand draft of CAD $ 203.40 and her documents were sent to WES (Assessing Authority of Canada) on 15-11-2014 and positive assessment result was received. The complainant failed to submit her case filing documents due to which her application under EES Program could not be lodged. The opposite parties have got positive skill assessment of the complainant. Therefore, as per clause 11 (a) and (c) of the contract, complainant is not entitled to any refund. The complainant has paid amount of US $ 1300 to M/s. GSBC, Dubai, which is separate legal entity and this amount cannot be claimed from the opposite parties. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that once the complainant had retained the services of the opposite parties and they started provided service from day one, even before the case was filed, the opposite parties have duly performed their part from the beginning. The complaint was duly advised and guided about necessary documents. There is no deficiency in service on their part at any point of time. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that out of the amount received from the complainant, Rs. 9270/- and Rs. 2100/- have been paid as service tax, which is totally non-refundable. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that this Forum has not jurisdiction to deal with this complaint because complainant has agreed in clause 23 of agreement that all the differences and disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the Arbitrator appointed by the company. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Next submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that M/s. GSBC, Dubai, is not subsidiary of the opposite parties. It is a separate and distinct legal entity. The amount of Rs. 94,000/- was deposited by complainant with M/s. Paul Merchants Ltd., Chandigarh for conversion of the amount into US$ to pay the fee of US$ 1300 of M/s. GSBC, Dubai. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant has not paid amount of Rs. 28,090/- as alleged. The amount of Rs. 17,100/- was paid by her towards assessment fee of her spouse and Rs.12,636/- was paid towards fee of WES for getting her educational credential assessed from WES. Therefore, the complainant being at fault by not submitting required documents cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint be dismissed with cost. We have carefully gone through the record, case law cited by learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the rival contentions. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 84,270/- and Rs. 94,000/- which were paid under agreements Ex. OP-1/3 and Ex. OP-1/4. Both these agreements are with different companies i.e. WWICS and GSBC, Dubai. The complaint has been filed against WWICS only. Therefore, before proceeding further, it is to be decided whether the opposite parties are also representing GSBC,Dubai or not. Both the agreements were executed at Bathinda on 9-10-2014. The agreement executed in the name of GSBC, Dubai is also produced by the opposite parties. The amounts paid under agreement Ex. OP-1/4 are also acknowledged by the opposite parties. In the case of Aditya Kumar Vs. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., (supra) also, the matter was relating to WWICS as well as GSBC and it was noticed by Hon'ble National Commission that duties of the company as well as duties of client have been mentioned in the agreement. These companies are providing services for helping the prospective clients to obtain visa from the Canadian High Commission and for that purpose, they are charging requisite fees. The agreements were signed by the petitioner with M/s. WWICS on the same day. The order of District Forum directing the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 25,000/- plus 1400 Canadian dollar and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation was restored by Hon'ble National Commission. As the agreements in the name of both the companies were executed at Bathinda and produced by the opposite parties, therefore, it can be safely inferred that the opposite parties are associated with M/s GSBC, Dubai. The execution of agreement is not disputed. The averments of the complainant are that the opposite parties have not provided any service as agreed upon whereas the version of the opposite parties is that complainant failed to submit requisite documents. In order to decide this controversy, the duties of the company towards complainant as mentioned in the agreement will be helpful and the same are reproduced as under :- In consultation with its associates at various locations, the Company shall provide the following services to its clients :- (a) Assist the client in preparation of his/her immigration case; (b) Review and identify submission of required documents and supporting evidences; (c) Submit the complete case with supporting documentation and evidence alongwith the submission report to the processing visa office within 15 days of the receipt of all requisite documents from the client at WWICS Ltd., Head Office; (d) Handle all correspondence with the respective High Commission pertaining to client's case (e) Assist the client in keeping his/her file upto date; (f) Advice the client about any subsequent changes in the immigration laws and any subsequent conditions applicable to meet the selection criteria; A perusal of aforesaid list reveals that first duty of the opposite parties was to assist the client (complainant in this case) in preparation of her immigration case, but the opposite parties have not produced any such document to prove that complainant was assisted for the purpose of service. The stand of the opposite parties that complainant has failed to submit documents stand contradicted from the evidence produced by them. The opposite parties have produced on record copy of letter Ex. OP-1/6. This letter has been produced to prove that the educational credential of the complainant were got assessed but this letter itself proves that complainant has submitted documents relating to education qualification otherwise there was no question for getting these credential got assessed. The only evidence produced by the opposite parties to prove that complainant failed to submit documents are copies of e-mail (Ex. OP-1/1) and reminder (Ex. OP-1/2) but Ex. OP-1/1 is general copy of mail. No specific documents are mentioned which were not provided by complainant. It is rather mentioned that Educational documents of PA and Spouse are not provided whereas credentials of these documents have been got assessed. Moreover, it was also argued that Rs. 12,636/- was paid by complainant for getting her educational credential assessed from WES. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the opposite parties have not performed their duties as detailed in the agreement. It amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite parties are also directly associated with M/s. GSBC, Duabi, therefore, they are liable to refund the amount of US# 1300 also. The amount of Rs. 17,100/- and Rs. 12,636/- were paid for educational credential of complainant and her spouse which have been got done. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs 5000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 84,270/- and Rs. 94,000/- paid to M/s. GSBC, Dubai, with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of payment till realization. The compliance of this order be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 07-03-2017 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
