| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 236 of 05-9-2018 Decided on : 05-05-2022 Ramandeep Kaur aged about 36 years W/o Sh. Tanveer Singh Tanveer Singh S/o Sh. Major Singh - Both R/o H. No. 44, Homeland Enclave, Goniana Road, Bathinda.
........Complainants Versus WWICS Global Law Offices Private Limited, A-12 Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali, through its Proprietor/Partner/Director WWICS Global Law Offices Private Limited, SCO No. 2415-16, Sector 22-C, Near Hotel Aroma, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/Incharge Arvinder Singh
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainants : Sh. K.S. Dabrikhana, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. A S Chahal, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainants Ramandeep Kaur & another (here-in-after referred to as complainants) have filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against WWICS Global Law offices Pvt. Ltd, and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that the complainants wanted to go to Canada for which, the opposite parties allured the complainants to arrange Visa of Canada for Ramandeep Kaur and spouse Visa for her husband Tanveer Singh (complainant No. 2). The opposite parties demanded approx. Rs.2,50,000/- in cash besides other misc. expenses for the documentation while the remaining amount was to be paid after arranging Visa of Canada by the opposite parties for the complainants. It is alleged that the complainants handed over the relevant documents to the opposite parties for arranging Visa for the complainants and also paid a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- on 14.9.2017, Rs. 90,300/- on 3.2.2018, Rs. 9999/- on 9.3.2018 and US$ 700 on 5-10-2017 as per demand raised by the opposite parties from time to time with false assurance that the matter for Visa of the complainants is under process. The complainants continued depositing the amount with the opposite parties under bonafide impression that the opposite parties will arrange Visa for the complainants. All the aforesaid amounts have been paid by the complainants to the opposite parties through bank accounts from Bathinda. It is further alleged that despite payment of the aforesaid amount deposited by the complainants, as per demand of the opposite parties and submitting the other requisite formalities, the opposite parties have failed to arrange Visa for the complainants. Mr.Baljinder Singh representative of the opposite parties and Arvinder Singh Branch Incharge of office at Chandigarh alongwith some other employees of the opposite parties continued putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext and kept on giving false assurance to the complainants that the Visa shall be arranged within a few months. The complainants also made various phone calls besides personally visiting the offices of the opposite parties at Chandigarh and Panchkula, but to no effect. The complainants also lodged complaints through e-mail, but the opposite parties failed to arrange any Visa for the complainants rather now the opposite parties have stopped even attending the phone calls of the complainants and have also stopped replying their e-mails which shows the intention of the opposite parties. Due to said act of the opposite parties, complainants have suffered huge monetary loss to the tune of approx. Rs.2,75,000/-. The complainants further alleged that they repeatedly requested the opposite parties to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,75,000/-, but to no effect. The complainants also got served legal notice upon the opposite party calling upon them to refund the total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- with upto date interest thereon, but the opposite parties even did not give any reply to the said notice and ultimately refused to refund any amount to the complainants. Due to the said act of the opposite parties, the complainants are suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial loss for which they claim compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,75,000/- with upto date interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of deposit till realization and pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compenaton besides Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply raising preliminary objection that the present case is a case of non-submission, disinterest and non cooperation as the complainant are trying to take the advantage of their own wrongs. It has been pleaded that the complainant No.1 as principal applicant and her husband, complainant No.2 retained the services of the opposite parties by entering into contracts of engagement dated 18.09.2017 with the opposite parties under Federal Skilled Worker Category -Express Entry, Canada and later on, signed another contracts of engagement dated 15.02.2018 with the opposite parties under Express Entry Provincial Nominee Program for the province of Prince Edward Island for better chances for getting permanent immigration to Canada. The complainant was duly provided with all the information for submitting the documents for processing of her permanent immigration case before the concerned authorities as per checklist. But inspite of the being reminded on numerous occasions, the complainant No. 1 failed to submit her case filing documents and her renewed IELTS score card till date, due to which opposite parties could not file her case for Express Entry and as such the complainant is herself at fault. That the complainants retained the services of the opposite parties by entering into contracts of engagement dated 18.09.2017 with them under Federal Skilled Worker Category -Express Entry, Canada and had paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 18,000/- which is non refundable) vide receipts dated 14.09.2017. The complainants had been properly guided/advised by the opposite parties to provide mandatory documents as per checklist. The complainant as per clause 2(a) or the contract dated 18.09.2017 was required to submit her complete case filing documents along with IELTS score card within 15 days of retaining the services with the opposite parties dated 18.09.2017 i.e. till 03.10.2017. Therefore, the opposite parties were under no obligation to provide further services but as a goodwill gesture the opposite parties kept on following with the complainants for the complete set of documents by way of various reminders. However, the complainants vide email dated 16.10.2017 submitted incomplete set of documents and the opposite parties assessed the incomplete documents and discrepancies were sent vide e-mail dated 24.10.2017 and 30.10.2017. Thereafter, complainant No. 1 had been reminded on 25.10.2017, 30.10.2017 and 01.11.2017 to submit her NOC confirmation and ultimately, complainant No. 2 confirmed NOC vide email dated 06.11.2017. The complainants again submitted the incomplete set of documents vide email dated 23.12.2017 and again the opposite parties assessed the documents and discrepancies had been sent to the branch office vide email dated 25.12.2017 which was duly intimated to complainants. After submission of the documents by the complainants, the documents of the complainants were assessed by designated authorities and the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS in short) score of the complainant No. I was calculated as 335. It has been further pleaded that the immigration case of the complainants had been submitted under Express Entry to the authorities with the CRS score 335 dated 15.01.2018. The application of the complainant No. I for express entry was not picked up by the authorities as the CRS score of the complainant was lower than the cut off score of 438, which is totally the discretion of the authorities on which the opposite parties have no domain. It has also been pleaded that later on, the complainants voluntarily decided to apply for the province i.e. Prince Edward Island for better chances for getting permanent immigration to Canada as per rules of the authorities. The complainants also signed another contract of engagement dated 15.02.2018 with the opposite parties under Express Entry Provincial Nominee Program –for the province of Prince Edward Island and had paid an amount of Rs.85,000/- (excluding service tax or Rs. 15,300/- which is non refundable) vide receipts dated 23.02.2018, 09.03.2018 and the remaining amount was adjusted from the fee already paid in the first contract dated 18.09.2017 towards the second contract of engagement dated 15.02.2018 for Prince Edward Island. The opposite parties further pleaded that thereafter, the immigration case of the complainants was lodged online with Prince Edward island Authority on 14.03.2018, which was intimated to the complainant No. 1 vide email dated 14.03.2018. The complainant had provided her IELTS score card which was expiring on 08.10.2018 and despite being reminded on numerous occasions by the opposite parties, the complainant failed to submit her renewed IELTS score card till date, due to which her immigration case could not be processed. Later on, the complainant became disinterested and without filing any refund application, filed the present complaint before this Commission. It has been further pleaded that the opposite parties are still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract provided the complainant submit her valid IELTS score card. The opposite parties have pleaded that complainant entered into another contract dated 18-9-2017 with opposite parties which is separate and distinct legal entity and had paid US$ 700 to the opposite parties vide receipt dated 20-10-2017. Since complainant had committed breach of contract by not providing the complete set or documents within 15 days as per clause 2(b) of the contract dated 18.09.2017, the complainant is not entitled to any refund as per clause 11(1), (III), clause 11 NOTE (A) and 12(a)(1),(2), of the contract dated 18.09.2017. It has also been pleaded that an amount of Rs.33,300/- out of Rs.2,18,300/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant and is non-refundable as the same has gone into Government account as is clear from the Receipts dated 14.09.2017, 23.02.2018, 09.03.2018 wherein the details of service tax have been mentioned. Thus as per clause 11(iii) of the contract dated 18.09.2017, this amount cannot be claimed from the opposite parties. The opposite parties further pleaded that once the complainant had retained the services, the company started providing services from day one, even before the case was filed. Services such as counseling and advising the client about the Immigration Category and the Immigration procedure to be followed. Providing and counselling the client about immigration package the check list of documents. Explaining the client in detail about the documents and the forms that are necessary for Filing Immigration Application. Advising and guiding the client in preparation of documents and forms for herself, his spouse and children in proper format as per requirement of Immigration Authorities etc., Documents such as Experience documents, Education documents etc., The opposite parties have pleaded that they had duly performed their part of the contract, right from the time when the complainants had retained the services and was duly advised and guided about necessary documents for preparing and filing the case. Further preliminary objections are that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint since the complainant had agreed in Clause 20 of the Contract dated 18.09.2017 and 15.02.2018 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, the opposite parties have admitted that the complainants had paid total amount of Rs.1,85,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 33,300/- which is non refundable) vide receipts dated 14.09.2017. 23.02.2018, 09.03.2018 as professional fee. The opposite parties have pleaded that it has been clearly conveyed to the complainants while retaining the services of the opposite parties that miscellaneous expenses must be borne by the complainants only. The complainants were updated from time to time regarding the process of their case. The complainants paid the professional fee for the services they retained from the opposite parties as per contracts. The complainants are trying to take advantage of their own wrong. The complainant no. 1 failed to submit her renewed IELTS score card til1 date, due to which her immigration case could not be processed further. It is denied that the employees of the respondents unnecessarily put off the case rather the complainant No. 1 herself failed to provide her IELTS documents and no false assurance was ever made to the complainants. The opposite parties are still ready and willing to perform their parts of the contract provided the complainants submit her valid IELTS score card. In further reply, the opposite parties reiterated their version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainants, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of their complaint, the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit of Tanveer Singh, complainant No. 2 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-27). In order to rebut the evidence of complainants, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Bajaj (Ex.OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/16). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, complainant No. 1 applied under Federal Skilled Worker Category Express Entry, for Canada through opposite parties and deposited an amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- with the opposite parties vide Ex. C-4. Contract of Engagement (Ex. C-2) was signed between the parties on 18-9-2017. Ex. OP-1/12 is e-mail dated 15-1-2018 vide which profile of the complainant was accepted in Express Entry Pool. The opposite parties took more than three months time to update the profile of complainant No. 1. As per this e-mail Invitation to apply for permanent residence was to be received, which was not received in the case of complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) score of complainant No. 1 was 335 and application of complainant No. 1 for express entry was not picked up as CRS score of the complainant No. 1 was lower than the cut off score of 438. This Commission is of the considered opinion that since the opposite parties are handling such type of cases in their daily routine, they must be aware of the fact that file of CRS score with 335 is not expected to be picked up from express entry pool as there cannot be sudden rise of more than 100 points in cut-off. Despite that, opposite parties charged such a huge amount from the complainants and allured them that the file of complainant will be selected/choosen. The pleading of the opposite parties is that services provided by them are advising and guiding the client in preparation of documents and forms for herself, his spouse and children in proper format as per requirement of Immigration Authorities etc., but in the case of complainants, opposite parties failed to properly guide the complainants regarding 'possibility of Invitation to apply' with such lower CRS score, due to which file of complainant No. 1 was not picked up from Express Entry Pool. Thereafter, opposite parties allured the complainant to apply under Prince Edward Island for Permanent Immigration to Canada and charged Rs.90,300/- vide Ex. C-5. The submission of learned counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant failed to submit her renewed IELTS score card due to which her immigration case could not be processed. A perual of file reveals that complainant paid charges under this category on 3-2-2018 and signed Contract of Engagement on 15-2-2018. Ex. OP-1/10 reveals that vide e-mail 25-12-2017 some of the documents were demanded in the case of complainant No. 1 which includes IELTS of PA (Principal Applicant) which was going to expire on 8-10-2018. Second contract of engagement dated 15.02.2018 for Prince Edward Island was executed between the parties on 15-2-2018. The pleading of the opposite parties is that complainants have not submitted revised IELTS Card of complainant No. 1 due to which her case could not be processed under Provincial Nominee Program whereas e-mail (OP-1/10) produced on file by the opposite parties proved that IELTS was valid upto 8-10-2018. From 15-2-2018, when the contract was signed and till 8-10-2018, the date of expiry of IELTS, the opposite parties were having sufficient time to process the case of the complainant but as is evident from e-mail dated 25-12-2017 (Ex. OP-1/10), opposite parties demanded IELTS of PA (Principal Applicant) on 25-12-2017. The complainants filed complaint before this Commission on 5-9-2018 for redressal of their grievance. Therefore, it is not understandable which IELTS card was required by the opposite parties when they were already having valid IELTS card with them. Moreover, the opposite parties must be aware of the profile of complainants as complainant No. 1 already submitted her profile/documents with them at the time of signing above said first contract. Hence, such act of the opposite parties makes the position crystal clear that despite knowing the actual position, Immigration Agencies allure the general public and charge huge amount. In the case of the complainants, opposite parties failed to guide properly/provide proper service to the complainants for which handsome amount has been charged by them rather opposite parties misguided the complainants and kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainats have filed this complaint on 5-9-2018 before the expiry of IELTS Card i.e. 8-10-2018. If complainants have not knocked door of this Commission, opposite parties may have advised them another immigration source/programme for PR to charge some more amount. A perusal of Agreement (Ex. C-2) reveals that opposite parties specifically offered and got printed clauses regarding pre-landing sevices in Native Country and Post-Landing Services in Toronto Canada to allure the general public that there leaves no doubt regarding non-issuance of Visa. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for not being providing services for which they charged huge amount. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to refund the amount deposited by complainant after deducting the amount of tax paid to government and fee, if any paid to Embassy, with interest @8% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced : 05-05-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
