Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services

**Sidhant** · 09-10-2009, 11:15 PM

Mr.B.John Richard, S/o.B.R.Smiles,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Pvt.Employee ,
R/o.H.No.5-245/6, Plot No.25, Near Steven School,
Syndicate Bank Colony, Old Bowenpally,
Secunderbad-11. …Complainant
And
1. M/s.Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.,
(WWICS Ltd.),
Rep.by its C M D Mr.Lt.Col. BSSandhu (Retd.)
Having its Head Office:SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C,
Chandigarh, India-1060022.
2. M/s.Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.,
(WWICS Ltd.), Hyderabad Branch situated at
III Floor, Laxmi Plaza, Beside Shenoy Nursing Home,
East Marredpally,
Secunderabad-26. ... Opposite Parties

O R D E R

1. This is a complainant filed under section 12 of C.P. act 1986, seeking directions against opposite parties for refund of Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/-for the mental and physical agony undergone and for costs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the opposite party No.1 herein is Global Resettlement Solutions Consultancy Company operating along with global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai-UAE providing Immigration Services, Placement Services Resettlement Services & Settlement Services in different parts of the world having Associate offices around the world and the opposite party No.2 herein is the Hyderabad branch of the 1st Opposite party herein.

It is further pleaded that apart from the routine resettlement solutions they are engaged in providing Personal Services for Clients of the company, in providing the best services of immigration to seek permanent residency right from the start until they completely settle in the country of their choice. They also take care of airport pickup, provide subsidized rooms help in opening a Bank Account, Credit Card, Driving License, Government Card, finding education institutes for children, getting insurance and many more such services.

3. It is further pleaded that Opposite party No.1 has categorized the services to be provided as Gold and Bronze. Bronze package would include only pre-landing services, whereas, Gold package would not only include pre-landing but would include post-landing services also. It is stated that the complainant herein had taken the services under the Gold category by making spot payment but from the day one onwards the services were not at all satisfactory.

The complainant has been regular making all the payments from time to time, even when the representatives of the opposite party No.1 were at fault in regard to the information of the services to be provided to the complainant from time to time. He reminded about payment mode to the representatives of opposite party No.2 (WWICS, Hyderabad) but opposite parties have failed to provide the services. Due to the deficiency of service from the representatives of opposite parties, the complainant had to make the delayed payment for which, the opposite party No.1 had collected the late fee charges against the assurances of opposite party No.2. It amounts to unfair trade practice from the opposite parties.

5. It is submitted that when the complainant herein analyzed the services and transactions, the said analysis revealed the following acts of omissions and commissions as under:-
(i) The opposite parties failed to provide the right and correct information of immigration laws and procedure in applying for, the time to be consumed for the procedural aspects. without informing all the information, have informed the wrong and incorrect information and kept the complainant in dark without providing any information.

(ii) The opposite parties were adding various charges under deceptive and innocuous prefixes.

The contractual latitude permitting the opposite parties herein to levy all and sundry charges as aforesaid in addition to the holding up of the amounts paid by the complainant has to be viewed in the light of the aforesaid illegality and unfair trade practices by opposite parties. The acts of omissions and commissions attributed to the opposite parties constitute gross dereliction of DEFFICIENCY IN SERVICE and also RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICE & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE as defined under section. 2 (g) Sec.2(nnn) and Section.2® of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6. The opposite parties in their written version submitted that at the time of hiring the services of the opposite parties the complainant had entered into a contract of engagement dated 17-04-2007 wherein he had agreed that any dispute arising between the parties shall be settled through Arbitration by appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by the company, whose award shall be final and binding on both the parties. Since the jurisdiction of this Forum is specifically barred in view of Clause 16 of the contract of engagement, this Hon’ble Forum should refer the matter to the Arbitration and dismiss the complaint.

The complainant had entered into a contract of engagement dated 17-04-2007 wherein specifically agreed that the legal jurisdiction shall only be of Chandigarh Courts. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.30,000/-to the answering respondents at Chandigarh, receipt dated 25-04-2007 regarding said payment was issued from Chandigarh and the Head office of respondents is situate at Chandigarh. Therefore, cause of action to claim refund, if any, has arisen at Chandigarh as per Section 20 CPC. Since the complainant has foregone his right and has submitted himself by way of signing a contract to the Jurisdiction of Chandigarh Courts only the jurisdiction at all other places is excluded”.

The provision of Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 is virtually identical with Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, Section 11 of the Act permits the restrictions of territorial jurisdiction to one out of two or more District Forums for the trial of a consumer dispute by way of an express agreement between the parties. In the instant case the complainant and respondents/opposite party by way of contract dated 17-04-2007 as mentioned above have specifically agreed that the legal Jurisdiction shall only be of Chandigarh Courts only. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

Clause 17 of the contract specifies that if the client shows disinterest or does not co-operate in satisfying the purpose of the contract the contract shall be deemed to be concluded and in such a case the client shall not be entitled to any refund.

As per Clause 3 of the contract dated 17-04-2007 the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- within 30 days from the date of signing of the contract. However the complainant failed to make the payment within 30 days i.e., till 16-05-2007 and made the payment on 11-06-2007 due to which, interest was charged from the complainant as per Clause 4 of the contract. It is denied that the answering respondent had ever indulged in unfair trade practices. All the payments were to be made by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the contract.

The complainant was duly informed by the answering respondents vide letter dated 15-10-2007 regarding the receipt of the Canadian High Commission file number. The complainant has been time and again informed through e-mails regarding the progress of his case. However he vide letter dated 19-12-2007 decided to withdraw his application due to personal and professional reasons against the terms and conditions of the contract. The complainant vide e-mail dated 27-12-2007 was advised not to abort his case and to allow the opposite party to proceed and make the case of the complainant a success by getting him permanent residency.

There was no reply from the complainant. In fact, after the receipt of withdrawal application of the complainant dated 19-12-2007 the Canadian High Commission vide letter date 27-08-2008 had again asked for confirmation as to whether the complainant was still interested in immigrating to Canada or not. However again no response was received from the complainant within the prescribed time by the Canadian High Commission and as such the Canadian High Commission has retained the application of the complainant for processing. The complainant is trying to take advantage of his own wrongs. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and it is the complainant who himself is to be blamed.

7. The Complainant filed evidence affidavit and also written arguments reiterating his stand. He relied on Exs.A1 to A10. On the other hand opposite parties neither filed the evidence affidavit nor the written arguments. They also did not rely on any documentary evidence.

8. Points for Consideration are:-

i. Whether this Forum has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain this case ?
ii. Whether this case is to be referred to the arbitrator as contended by opposite parties ?
iii. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? and if so, whether the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount paid by him to opposite parties ?
iv. Whether this case is bad for non joinder of necessary party ?
v. Whether the complaint is entitled for any compensation? if so, to what amount ?

9. Point No.I:- The opposite parties in their counter raised a plea that both parties agreed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts at Chandigarh, and as such this forum has no territorial jurisdiction. We can not appreciate the above contention for the reason that no such agreement is filed, where both parties agreed to invoke the Jurisdiction of the Courts at Chandigarh.

Even, otherwise, there cannot be an agreement against the statutes or law. As per section-11 of the C.P. Act, the complaint can be institute in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite party or each of the opposite parties reside or carry on business. In the instant case, opposite party No.2, admittedly, has been doing business at Secunderabad within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. So, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try the present dispute.

10. Point No.II:- According to the opposite parties, as pleaded in their counter, there was an agreement between the parties to refer the dispute to the arbitrator appointed by opposite party No.1, but no such agreement is filed by the opposite parties. So, the question of referring the present complaint to the arbitrator does not arise.

11. Point No.III:- The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties having undertaken to provide personal services of immigration and even after accepting considerable amount from him, failed to provide the necessary service. According to him, the opposite parties could not provide professional services though received money from him. It is also stated that the opposite parties did not provide him the correct information regarding immigration laws etc., but collected charges under deceptive heads. The complainant filed his elaborate evidence affidavit and also produced the receipts, the notice issued, the acknowledgements and other relevant documents. He also filed his written arguments covering all the aspects.

Curiously enough, the opposite parties neither filed the evidence affidavit nor the written arguments, which are mandatory. In other words, the opposite parties could not adduce any evidence to rebut the stand taken by the complainant. Though they referred so many annexures in the counter, they have not filed any annexures or agreements till today. It means to say that the opposite parties have no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant.

12. The opposite parties in the counter pleaded that if the applicant withdraws his application, the company would still be entitled to get full fees. It is also pleaded that the fee paid to them was non refundable. They also referred that both the parties entered into a contract of engagement on 17-04-2007, but for the reasons best known to them they failed to produce such an agreement.

Thus except filing the counter, the opposite parties could do nothing to challenge the case of the complainant as pleaded in the complaint or his evidence affidavit or his written arguments. However, they admitted the receipt of the fees from the complaint.

13. The payments made by the complainant or not denied. Under Ex. A.1 the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to opposite parties on 18-04-2007, for which Ex.A2 receipt was also issued. The complainant paid Rs.1200 US $ to the opposite parties on 16-06-2007 under Ex.A4. They also paid Rs.20,000/- under Ex.A5 Ex.A6 is the receipt evidencing the payment of 1200 US $ under Ex.A4. Though the complainant stated that he also paid Rs.20,000/- under the original of Ex.A3 to the opposite parties, it is a pay order in the name of Canadian High Commission at New Delhi. It was not issued in the name of the opposite parties. Thus it is quite evident that the opposite parties, who received the amounts for rendering immigration services to the complainant, failed to keep up their promise.

Their contention that the applicant is not entitled for refund of the fees paid is evidenced, by any document. The opposite parties were clearly deficient in not rendering the necessary services to the complainant though received considerable amount from him. So, the complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid to the opposite parties.

14. Point No.IV:- The opposite parties in their counter took a vague plea that the case is bad for non joinder of Canadian High Commission. We cannot appreciate the stand taken by the opposite parties as the complainant had paid the amounts to opposite party only, and as such he is entitled to ask for refund of the same from them only. So, the complaint is not bad for non joinder of the Canadian High Commission.

15. Point No. V:- While discussing on point No.3, we clearly held that the opposite parties were deficient in service. The complainant got issued a notice under Ex.A7 to opposite parties. Though they received the same, did not even care to reply. Such an action is construed as deficiency in service. The complainant suffered for about more than one year to get back his amount, as opposite party failed to provide him the necessary placements or immigration services. So, his entitled for compensation for the mental agony caused to him. The ends of Justice would be met if, we award the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the agony caused to the complainant.

16. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts now being directed. Under Exs.A1 and Ex.A2 the complainant paid Rs.30,000/-. Under Ex.A5 he paid Rs.20,000/-. Under Exs.A4 & A6 he paid 1200 US $ which is equalant to Rs.50,000/-. So, the complainant is justified in asking for refund of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties are directed to pay the same with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e.,24-07-2008 till the date of payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant. They are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

17. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one Lakh only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e., 24-07-2008 till the date of payment.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousands only) and also Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousands only) towards costs of this complaint to the complainant.

For compliance, 30 days time is granted.

**Sidhant** · 09-12-2009, 10:13 PM

Rajiv Sharma son of Sh. Ranjit Kumar Sharma r/o H.No.435, Mohalla Dalichi, Sirhind City, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Versus

1- Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, Head Office, SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh-160022 through its Managing Director.

2- Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, branch office at Khanna through its Branch Manager.

1- Complainant in order to seek job opportunity in Canada, availed services of opposite party, by visiting their branch at Khanna on 26.12.2006. Opposite party demanded Rs.25000/- as processing fee which was duly paid. He was then required to pass IELTS course for which, spent Rs.4500/- and on asking of opposite party, deposited Rs.5600/- with Canadian High Commission on 24.3.2007. On 5.4.2007, opposite party delivered him offer letter issued by New Hope Transport Company Limited (hereinafter to be described as “NHT Co.”), offering job of truck driver on 24 months contract. Then on 26.4.2007, opposite party demanded Rs.1 lac as total dues to be paid by the complainant, for release of documents i.e. job offer letter, work permit to work in Canada. Same was deposited in May, 2007 with opposite party. Despite it, opposite party did not send the complainant to Canada, as promised and kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, on 22.11.2007, received letter from opposite party, requiring him to convert his Canada work visa to any other category of visa of UK, Australia or Czech Re-Public and also offered to refund entire amount to the complainant.

On receipt of letter, approached Khanna branch of opposite party, to know status of his file. Then, he was offered to be returned Rs.1 lac, due to delay in getting work visa permit and assured that Rs.25000/- will remain with opposite party, as his file with them was still under process. Manager in the branch office, took signatures of the complainant on blank papers, as the receipt of Rs.1 lac was to be sent to the head office, for getting Rs.1 lac released. Despite lapse of two months, he did not receive Rs.1 lac, despite promise to give the same within one or two weeks. On 8.2.2008, sent e-mail to NHT Co., to know status of his job offer letter received through opposite party. They sent e-mail dated 13.2.2008 to the complainant, intimating that they had never sent any letter of intent to hire drivers through opposite party and NHT Co. is not in contact with opposite party for the last several months.

After receipt of such e-mail, approached opposite party, who finally on 8.5.2008 after much delay, delivered cheque of Rs.1 lac to the complainant. On receipt thereof, complainant asked for refund of Rs.25000/- deposited as process fee, because job offer given by NHT Co. through opposite party, was false and fake. Subsequently, opposite party instead of refunding his money, sent e-mail dated 27.6.2008, closing his file and failed to return his money. Such act on part of opposite party is claimed amounting to deficiency in service, by filing this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, claimed refund of Rs.25000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and harassment.

2- Opposite party in reply, have admitted that Rs.25000/- were deposited by the complainant, but claimed that it was professional fee as per contract of engagement dated 21.12.2006 entered with the complainant. Complainant was to pay process fee of the Canadian High Commission which is non-refundable. Further admitted that job of truck driver by NHT Co.Ltd. through them, was offered to the complainant and that the complainant had deposited Rs.1 lac on 31.5.2007. But denied that after receipt of such amount, they delayed matter of the complainant, to send him to Canada. But on the other hand, employer of the complainant NHT Co. could not get labour market opinion (LMO) from the concerned department, due to which case of the complainant was delayed.

Complainant advised to wait for sometime, but he became impatient and started demanding refund. He vide letter dated 29.11.2007 demanded refund of Rs.1 lac which was duly paid to the complainant. As case of the complainant was getting delayed due to LMO, so, was given offer to convert his Canada work visa to any other category of visa for other country. But no assurance was given to refund Rs.25000/-. Entire fee under the contract was non refundable. But in the instant case, opposite party failed to get offer for job, so complainant would be entitled to Rs.20000/-, but he was offered job by NHT Co. Ltd., as truck driver, therefore, they were competent to retain full amount of Rs.25000/-, as their fee. Complainant has suppressed material facts. He received Rs.1 lac as full and final refund vide consent letter dated 6.5.2008. Hence, can not claim further amount. There is no breach of the contract by them and also no deficiency on their part to the complainant. Further pleaded that this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the complainant, complainant is estopped by doctrine of promissory estoppel to file the same. Complainant is not entitled to file complaint and can raise his grievance before the Arbitrator.

3- To prove their versions, both parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits and documents and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- First, we shall take question of jurisdiction of the Fora. On behalf of opposite party, it was argued that under the contract between the parties, jurisdiction to decide the dispute is restricted to the courts at Chandigarh under contract Ex.R4. Hence, this Fora is not competent to decide the matter. In support, attention was drawn to a case reported as Sanjeev Kumar Vs Rockland Leasing Limited 1993 CPC-435(Punjab State Commission). With due respect, we venture to say that this authority, having distinct facts from the case in hand, would have no application. U/s 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Fora within local limits of whose jurisdiction, opposite party resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, shall have the jurisdiction, secondly, where cause of action wholly or in part, arises. In the instant case, cause of action had accrued to the complainant at Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana, where contract was entered, payment made to the opposite party and refund given by opposite party to him. So, cause of action accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of this Fora. Moreover, opposite party has its branch at Khanna and for these matters, the Fora is competent to decide the controversy. Hence, has jurisdiction to entertain the same. So, for such reason, objection of opposite party rejected.

5- It is admitted that Rs.1 lac was refunded by opposite party, when they failed to arrange work permit for the complainant. Though, there was a delay in releasing this amount, but we are not concerned for disposal of this complaint, with such delay. Herein, we are required to conclude whether complainant is entitled to seek refund of Rs.25000/-obtained from him by the opposite party.

6- This sum of Rs.25000/- was obtained by the opposite party from complainant under receipt dated 26.12.2006 Ex.C1. Thereafter, opposite party handed over to complainant letter Ex.C4 dated 5.4.2007 from NHT Co. Ltd., Manitoba, offering him job of a truck driver under contract. Grouse of the complainant is that this letter Ex.C4 received by him for appointment of a truck driver through opposite party, was fake, as no such letter was ever issued by NHT Co. Ltd. Therefore, he was duped and defrauded by the opposite party. The necessity felt by the complainant to go into root of the case arose, when received communication Ex.C8 dated 22.11.2007 from opposite party. He was advised by the communication Ex.C8, to convert his option of visa into any other category for UK, Australia and Czech Re-Public. Further it was conveyed that if he was not interested in this suggested possibility, then was required to approach the branch manager of opposite party, for applying for refund which would be duly processed within provisions of the agreement.

7- On receipt of letter Ex.C8, complainant sent e-mail to NHT Co., his prospective employer. Copy of e-mail so sent is Ex.C9 dated 8.2.2008. This e-mail was replied by NHT Co. on 13.2.2008, copy of which is Ex.C9/A. NHT Co. through e-mail, conveyed to the complainant that NHT Co. has not sent letters of intent, to hire drivers through WWICS(opposite party). It was further mentioned that NHT Co. has not been in contact with WWICS, for several months and considered the relationship on hold. Further it was mentioned that NHT Co. has been waiting for WWICS, to provide applications and resumes, for potential drivers for review before initiating any form of commitment to potential workers.

8- This e-mail dated 13.2.2008, was in response to e-mail dated 8.2.2008 of the complainant.

9- Aforesaid aspect goes to show that offer of appointment as driver sent by opposite party to the complainant purportedly from NHT Co. Ltd., was fake one because NHT Co. had never issued any such letter of appointment to the complainant through opposite party. Nor they had asked opposite party, to recruit drivers for and on their behalf. When such things became clear and opposite party felt themselves in hot water and tangled in problem, thought it wise to refund Rs.1 lac to the complainant vide cheque dated 8.5.2008, copy of which is Ex.C10. This means till then, opposite party had been befooling the complainant and using his money, by giving false offers of appointment in Canada. When the matter got delayed, made another offer to get his visa changed to another country, to which he declined. In this way, method adopted by the opposite party became crystal clear to the complainant and consequently, compelled opposite party to refund his money. Though, entire money of Rs.1.25 lacs was not refunded and only succeeded in getting Rs.1 lac from them.

10- It is in aforesaid circumstances to be seen whether complainant is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.25000/-. No doubt, opposite party while releasing Rs.1 lac to the complainant, obtained receipt, took full and final settlement certificate Ex.R1 dated 6.5.2008 from him. But it appears that such certificate was obtained by opposite party from the complainant by way of coercion. As against receipt of Rs.1.25 lacs, they only refunded Rs.1 lac only after the fraud practised by them, came to notice of the complainant. Plea of the complainant qua which he has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, appears to be genuine and convincing that his signatures, for refund of Rs.1 lac, were taken on blank papers at Khanna branch, with stipulation that the receipt would be dispatched to head office from where, refund would reach him. This no due receipt as full and final certificate Ex.R1 is dated 6.5.2008. Whereas, the cheque of Rs.1 lac bears date 8.5.2008 and same is also the date mentioned in no due certificate Ex.R2 dated 8.5.2008. So, allegation of the complainant is correct that his signatures were taken on blank papers, on assertion that the amount of Rs.1 lac would be given after receipt from head office, who will refund the same on receipt of the receipt. Therefore, this receipt was taken under coercion. Where discharge voucher got signed by applying wrong practice of coercive method of bargaining, complainant can not be estopped simply on the ground that he had accepted the amount by executing discharge voucher. Reliance placed on a case reported as Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Govt. Tool Room & Training Centre 2008(1)CPC-495(NC).

11- Now coming to the straight point of entitlement of the complainant, to receive back Rs.25000/-. According to opposite party, that Rs.25000/- was taken by another agent named Global Strategic Business Consultancy, for processing case and the same is non-refundable under the contract. However, complainant never came into contract with Global Strategic Business Consultancy. His contract was with opposite party only. If Global Strategic Business Consultancy was a sister concern of opposite party, then complainant has nothing to do with them. Therefore, refund if any, is to be made by the opposite party, who had taken the same from the complainant under receipt Ex.C1 dated 26.12.2006.

12- In Para no.7 of the reply, opposite party have taken plea that in view of Clause-10 of the contract(Ex.R4), the service provided by the company being professional in nature, the fee of Rs.25000/- is non-refundable. Then it is added by them that in case opposite party fails to get offer for job, in that event, complainant would be entitled to Rs.20000/-. Because complainant was offered a job by NHT Co. of driver, therefore, the company was liable to retain full amount of Rs.25000/- as their fee. We had already at earlier part of the judgment, concluded that offer of job as driver by NHT Co. was a fake letter, as that company had never availed services of the opposite party, nor offered job through them to the complainant. So, it means no services even under the contract were provided by opposite party to the complainant. Rather, they manipulated and fabricated record, to eat and digest money of the complainant. Therefore, appears that no services were rendered under contract by opposite party to the complainant. Hence, in view of their own admission, they are liable to refund Rs.20000/- out of Rs.25000/- to the complainant. By not refunding that amount of Rs.20000/-, opposite party certainly would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its own consumer. They are guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice, by using unnecessarily on false assertion, money of the complainant for a long time.

13- In view of above discussions, we allow this complaint and as a result thereof, direct opposite party, to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 26.12.2006 till payment. For causing harassment, agony and suffering to the complainant, due to their conduct in rendering services, ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- compensation alongwith Rs.5000/- litigations costs. Order be complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of order

**adv.singh** · 01-29-2010, 09:59 AM

consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/74

Madhumita Pal
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. and another
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER

In the Court of the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 74 / 2007
1) Sri Madhumita Pal,

86, G.T. Road, Baidyabati,

P.S. Serampur, District-Hooghly. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.,

S.C.O. 2415-16, Sec. 22-C,

Cahndigarh-1600222.

Kolkata Branch Office,

Mr. A. Lt. Col. Alluwalia, Branch Director,

FMC Fortuna, Block-A 12, 2nd Floor,

234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road,

Kolkata-700020. ---------- Opposite Party

Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.

Order No. 2 2 Dated 0 6 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9.
Complainant Smt. Madhumita Pal by filing a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act on 7.3.07 has prayed for issuing direction upon the o.ps. to pay a sum of Rs.1,31,005.60 as paid by the complainant to the o.ps., Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.18,000/- for litigation cost making a grant total of Rs.4,99,005.60.

Fact of the case in short is that the complainant was asked by the o.p. no.2 to visit their office on 28.2.01 with a cheque of Rs.30,000/- and when the complainant visited o.p. no.2 demanded Rs.30,000/- which she paid vide cheque no.048791 dt.28.2.01 drawn on UTI Bank, Konnagar Branch and the o.p. no.2 assured the complainant will be called for interview by the Canadian Embassy within a short period of time for the visa of the complainant and her son Sananda Pal and o.p. no.2 also assured the complainant that they have specialization in Canadian immigration and settlement and the complainant would be afforded with a settlement for her and for her son along with a suitable job. The o.p. no.2 handed over an agreement to the complainant on 28.2.01 where some rules and regulations were printed for Canadian visa. Again on 15.3.01 the complainant had to pay US$ 1500 for her process of Canadian visa and the complainant on a draft through HSBC Ltd., Kolkata Branch on 16.3.01 sent the demanded US$ 1500 and in Indian currency it is valued at Rs.70,198.28 and it was shown in the statement of the o.ps. Again on the demand of the o.ps. complainant sent Rs.15,000/- to Canadian High Commission vide demand draft no.455458 issued by UBI dt.16.3.01 and again on 4.4.01 th4e complainant sent Rs.3000/- in favour of Canadian High Commission through the o.ps. vide draft no.410038 issued by SBI, Sheoraphully Branch and all those money were received by the o.p. no.2 on 5.6.01.

On 10.7.01 the complainant received a letter from Canadian High Commission through the o.ps. stating therein that the visa of the complainant is in progress along with the receipt of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.3000/- as previously paid by the complainant on 16.3.01 and 4.4.01 respectively. Again on 21.7.01 the complainant had to pay US$ 60 in the name of GLOBAL PLACEMENT SERVICES through the o.p. no.2. As asked by the o.ps. the complainant had undergone IELTS test from the British Council on payment of Rs.10,000/-.

The complainant repeatedly maintained contact with the o.ps. and she was asked that the process of her application for Canadian visa is in progress and she would be called for interview within a week. But, surprisingly no such call was made and again she approached o.p. no.2 who pressurized her to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- immediately, so that her visa for the country New Zeeland would be possible and when the complainant expressed her inability of paying such a huge amount and that she has no intention to go to New Zeeland, o.p. no.2 threatened the complainant with the consequences that all her money will be forfeited and the complainant would not do anything as the o.ps. are the creators of law.

Finding no other alternative the complainant sent lawyer’s notice which was duly received by the o.ps. It is only for the higher education and obtaining a proper job in Canada the complainant had given huge amount of money to the o.ps. But the act and actions of the o.ps. are intentional, motivated and unfair trade practices and for such payment of huge amount of money she had suffered huge mental loss and for which she has filed this case against the o.ps. with the aforesaid prayer

The o.p. no.2 has filed written statement on behalf of o.p. no.1 also wherein he has stated that there is no deficiency of service on their part and the complainant only hired the services of the o.ps. for preparation and submission of her case to the Canadian High Commission and she has received the interview call and so the case is liable to be dismissed.

It is their further case that this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case which is civil in nature as per Clause 50 of the contract and agreement dt.1.3.01 executed by the parties because the petitioner herself has submitted the case to the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Court. So, the case is liable to be dismissed on that score. In their w/v they have denied all the allegations of the complainant. The cae is barred by limitation also. But they have admitted the payment has been made by the complainant.

Decision with reasons :

Hon’ble Members of DCDRF, Hooghly in CDF Case no.134 of 2006 had dismissed the case on 5.3.07 giving liberty to the petitioner to file the case in appropriate forum because they observed that their forum is not the appropriate forum to dispose of the case. Thereafter the complainant on 7.3.07 had filed this case to this forum. Her case was admitted for disposal.

Complainant has filed the Xerox copy of the money receipt, annex-A as granted by the o.p. on 28.2.01 for payment of Rs.30,000/-. We have also perused the agreement, annex-B entered between the complainant and the o.p. Annex-C is the demand draft dt,.15.3.01 of US $ 1500. Annex-E is the statement of account and annex-F is for receipt of Rs.15,000/- made by the petitioner. The petitioner also made payment of Rs.3000/- to Canadian High Commission, annex-G dt.4.4.01. Her guest house booking is annex-H of Rs.1500/-. We have also perused the letter issued by Canadian High Commission, Immigration Section to the complain ant with regard to desire of the complainant to become a permanent residence in Canada. They have also admitted the receipt of the requisite fee from the complainant. They have also informed the complainant that her application is being processed under the independent immigrant category and annex-K is the receipt dt.10.7.01 showing payment of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.3000/- by the complainant. Invoice of US $ 60 is annex-L. IELTS Test Report Form is annex-M. But even in spite of those efforts and making payment as demanded by the o.ps, the complainant did not get any interview from Canadian High Commission as she prayed for and thereafter being compelled she sent a lawyer’s letter, annex-N dt.24.8.06 wherein she has ventilated all her grievances and in her lawyer’s letter she has alleged that the o.ps. have ‘swallowed” the entire money of the complainant “in the pretext of immigration to canada’ and she has demanded refund of her money with banking interest and penalty for her mental agony, sufferings and pain. In their reply annex-O dt.30.8.06 o.ps. have stated that the various amounts paid by the complainant were non refundable professional fees and it is absolutely wrong that they have given hopeless assurance to the complainant. And they have also alleged that the complainant only approached the o.ps. to hire its expert professional services and after being satisfied the complain ant had entered into the written contract of engagement dt.1.3.01. They have further asked the complainant to pay professional fees for her immigration to New Zeeland. And they have also taken the plea that “in fact the Canadian High Commission takes its own time to process the case due to heavy work load” and they have further stated that they have advised the complainant refraining herself for seeking any legal recourse against the o.ps. and the o.ps. are still ready and willing to perform their own part of contract. And they have also threatened the complainant that if she proceeds against the o.ps in court of law the complainant will be liable to pay cost throughout.

The letter is full of contradictions because when they knew that the immigration of the complainant to Canada is being processed by the Canadian High Commission and when it takes time for their heavy load of work in that event they could have very well requested the complainant to wait for some time more. They also stated that they are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In that event it is not understood why they have threatened the complainant asking her to be refrained from taking any legal action against them.

Complainant has also filed his letter of appointment issued by the Mr. Swaraj Mukhopadhyay, Principal and Secretary of Hollyhome School. She has also filed th report card and her son Annex-Q & R and her resignation Annex-S. We have already said that in order to get a job at Canada the petitioner wanted to go to Canada along with her son. We have also perused her documents viz. the letter of appointment to Methodist School, Annex-U, cash receipt of her son of East point College of Engineering and Technology, Annex-V and the identity card for pass port of the complainant, annex-W and her income tax form 16, Annex-X. The o.p. in their letter of attendance of interview preparation course (IPC) have stated that they must receive “confirmation with respect to who all shall be attending in the interview by 28 November, 2006”. But it is not understood that why they did not inform the complainant about the confirmation of her appearance to interview. We have perused the fee agreement for independence class R6 are the contract of engagement. It appears from the document R8 that an appointment letter will be sent within six to 3 months from the date of interview. But the complainant did not receive any such letter of appointment.

Main contention of the o.p. is that the petitioner only hired the service of the o.p. for the preparation and submission of her documents and case to the Canadian High Commission and as the petitioner received the letter of interview the o.ps. have duly performed their duty. And they have challenged the maintainability of the case because the o.p. received Rs.30,000/- for professional fee in Chandigarh and so, the forum has got no jurisdiction to dispose of this case.

We have already said that on the basis of the documents filed the petitioner hs not only claimed but established her case that she did not receive any such interview letter either from the Canadian High Commission or from the o.p. but admittedly the o.p. has received he professional fee and has also admitted as we have said earlier that the petitioner had hired their service. There is not a scrap of paper submitted from the side of the o.p. that they have not at all discharged their duty far to speak of satisfactory. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, evidence on record we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service committed on the part of the o.ps. and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as ordered hereunder.

Hence,

Ordered,

that the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. must pay Rs.1,31,005/- (Rupees one lakh thirty one thousand five) only, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for mental agonies and sufferings and Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for litigation cost. So the total amount of Rs.1,86,.005/- (Rupees one lakh eighty six thousand five) only must be paid by the o.ps. positively with thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default of such payment, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct.

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.

**adv.singh** · 02-12-2010, 09:46 AM

100.

NO: 105/12.3.2009

Decided on :03.12.2009

Charanjit Singh Sra aged 55 years, s/o Sh. Sucha Singh, r/o B-20 MCH-5, Guru Nanak Avenue, Hoshiarpur.

.......... Complainant

versus

1.

World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS), SCO 2415-16, Sector 22, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
2.

World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS) Defiance Colony, Jalandhar.

......... Opposite Parties

Complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. P.D. Goel, President,

Sh. A.S. Jauhar, Member,

Mrs. Vandna Chowdhary, Member.

Present: Sh. Manu Kaushal, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. C.S. Marwaha, counsel for the opp. parties.

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT:

1.

The complainant namely Charanjit Singh Sra has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the opposite parties are engaged in the business of providing services of immigration. That the opposite parties held free seminars in District Hoshiarpur in the year 2002 and the same was attended by the complainant also.
2.

It is the case of the complainant that he approached the office of opposite parties at Hoshiarpur in the year 2002. The complainant was assured that his case will be forwarded to Canada for immigration within 2 to 3 years. The complainant got allured and paid a sum of Rs. 65,000/- through Demand Drafts drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Hoshiarpur bearing No. 054083 dated 18.7.2002 and bearing No. 054145 dated 29.7.2002 for Rs. 35000/-.
3.

It is the case of the complainant that he was working as CTO in Punjab & Sind Bank and had sufficient experience and requisite qualification to apply for the Permanent Residence in Canada under Immigrating Skilled Workers Category.
4.

It is further the case of the complainant that the opposite parties got the agreements signed from him on 18.7.2002. It was agreed by the opposite parties vide clause 1(a) of the agreement :

“That it will assess the client's education (academic and professional), professional skills/training and experience for permanent residence in Canada and advise the client about Canadian Immigration.”

5.

It is the allegation of the complainant that it was the duty casted upon the opposite parties to prepare the case of the complainant for permanent immigration. That the complainant waited for 3 years, but did not hear any thing from the opposite parties, thus approached the opposite parties in the year 2005 and enquired about the status of his application. The complainant was shocked to know that there are lot of applications for immigration from India, therefore his case will take 3 years more.
6.

It is further the case of the complainant that he received letter dated 5.5.2008 from the Canadian High Commission to the effect that the opposite parties were not authorized to represent the case of the complainant before the Canadian High Commission. The complainant approached the opposite parties and it came to light that they have closed the office at Hoshiarpur. The complainant approached the regional office i.e., OP No.2, but they refused to give any satisfactory reply. It is further the allegation of the complainant that he was shocked to receive a letter from Canadian High Commission that he did not have sufficient experience under the categories, as his application has been sent under wrong category. It is further the allegation of the complainant that he wrote letter dated 25.9.2008 to the opposite parties , but of no consequences. That all the future plans of the complainant had been ruined, as he could not apply for permanent residence under the “skilled category”, as the rules have been changed by the Canadian High Commission, hence this complaint.
7.

The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed the joint reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis jurisdiction, non-joinder of necessary parties, concealment of material facts, limitation and estoppel were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complainant had entered into another contract with M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation, UAE on 18.7.2002 and had paid an amount of Rs. 35,000/-, but the said company has not been arrayed as OP. It is further replied that the case of the complainant was forward on 20.2.2002 by the replying O.Ps, however, the same was returned on account of non-submission of ILETS by the Canadian High Commission. The case of the complainant was again forwarded on 26.7.2003. The complainant received the letter dated 5.5.2008 from the Canadian High Commission, which was never brought to the notice of the replying opposite parties. The complainant himself started dealing with the Canadian High Commission in breach of terms and conditions of contract, which resulted into rejection of his case on 17.9.2008.
8.

It is further replied that the complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the answering O.Ps on 18.7.2002 by way of demand draft and the limitation to file the complaint expired on 18.7.2004, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 7.2.2009. That at the time of entering to the contract of engagement dated 18.7.2002, it was clearly mentioned qua clause 8 that “time shall not be the essence of the contact”. It is admitted that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.30,000/- to the replying opposite parties by way of draft. However, the amount of Rs. 35,000/- was paid by the complainant to M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy Corporation, UAE, as such the complainant cannot claim the amount of Rs. 35,000/- from the replying opposite parties. The replying opposite parties had been in contact with the Canadian High Commission regarding the case of the complainant and the case of the complainant was filed under a particular category. The complainant was informed from time to time regarding various requirements of CHC and the replying opposite parties had been in touch with the complainant till June, 2008.
9.

It is denied that the complainant was told that there are lot of applications for immigration, as such his case is likely to take another 3 years. The complainant received letter dated 5.5.2008 from the Canadian High Commission, which was never brought to the notice of the replying opposite parties. The complainant till date has not supplied rejection letter dated 17.9.2008. Since the complainant started direct dealing with the Canadian High Commission, therefore, he is not entitled to refund of the amount as per clause 10(h) of the Contract of Engagement dated 18.7.2002. Had the complainant informed the opposite parties about the letter dated 5.5.2008 of the Canadian High Commission, the replying opposite parties would have taken up the matter with Canadian High Commission. The replying opposite parties are fully competent to file the immigration cases before the Canadian High Commission. The case of the complainant was filed through Sh. Parvinder Sandhu, whose membership was temporarily suspended and later on revived. However, Sh. Davinder Sandhu continued to be full time member of CSIC, therefore, the case of the complainant could have been duly pursued by him, if the complainant would have informed regarding the receipt of letter dated 5.5.2008. The office of the opposite parties at Hoshiarpur was closed due to internal adjustment of the company. However, the complainant was informed that Jalandhar Branch Office will take care of the application of the complainant.
10.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits – Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2, letter to the OP – Mark C-3, letter dated 5.5.2008 – Mark C-4, letter dated 17.9.2008 – Mark C-5, drafts dated 18.7.2002 and 29.7.2002 – Mark C-6 and Mark C-7, agreement dated 18.7.2002 – Mark C-8, contract of agreement – Mark C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
11.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Bazaz – Ex. R-1, agreement dated 18.7.2002 – Mark R-2, letter dated 25.10.2002 – Mark R-3, letter dated 5.5.2008 – Mark R-4, letter dated 17.4.2009 – Mark R-5, letter dated 25.9.2008 – Mark R-6, paper of WWICS – Mark R-7, receipt dated 27.7.2002 – Mark R-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
12.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
13.

The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have raised the preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction. The complainant has produced on record the agreement – Mark C-8, which was executed at Hoshiarpur with the complainant, therefore, as per Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, this Court has got the jurisdiction to try this complaint, as part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court.
14.

The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 had also raised the objection with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has produced on record – Mark C-6 and Mark C-7, the copies of demand drafts dated 18.7.2002 and 29.7.2002 of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- respectively to prove that the payment of Rs. 65,000/- has been made by the complainant through said demand drafts to opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Thus, it is held that the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
15.

The opposite parties have also raised the preliminary objection with regard to limitation. Admittedly, the complainant has not sought refund of the amount of Rs. 65,000/-, but has prayed for compensation, therefore, the plea of limitation raised by the opposite parties is irrelevant.
16.

The learned counsel for the complainant also made a reference to Annexure R-5, the letter written by the complainant to Branch Manager, WWICS, Defence Colony, Jalandhar, and on the top of this letter, it has been recorded that “Client has received one letter from CHC, that we are not authorised to handle the case, after that client got rejection. Kindly pursue the case for judicial review.”
17.

Now, it is proved on record that the complainant has paid Rs. 65,000/- to the opposite parties qua demand drafts – Mark C-6 and Mark C-7. Annexure R-5 proves on record that the complainant had received a letter from CHC, that opposite parties are not authorised to handle the case. The case of the complainant was rejected.
18.

The ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that OP No. 1 was not authorised to forward the case of the complainant to Canada for immigration. It was also argued that the case of the complainant was sent by OP No. 1 in wrong category, as is clear from letter dated September 17, 2008 – Mark C-5. It was further argued that it was for the opposite parties to give suitable guidance to the complainant with regard to the qualification etc., but the opposite parties failed to discharge their duties, thus the complainant is entitled for compensation.
19.

The learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 raised the arguments that since the complainant started direct correspondence, as such his case was rejected, therefore, the rejection of the complainant is not due to the fault of OP No. 1. It was argued that the complainant did not possess the requisite qualification, therefore, his case of immigration to Canada was rejected. It was also argued that the complainant did not approach the opposite party No. 1 for guidance, and on the contrary, started direct correspondence with the Canadian High Commission, as is clear from the letter dated 25.9.2008 – Mark C-3, therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrong.
20.

The complainant has produced on record the copies of the demand drafts of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- - Mark C-6 and Mark C-7 drawn in favour of the opposite parties, therefore, it can be concluded that the complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 65,000/- to the opposite parties. Admittedly, the opposite parties failed to honour their commitment, as they failed to prepare the case of the complainant for permanent immigration to Canada. The case of the complainant for permanent immigration was rejected by the Canadian High Commission, therefore, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs. 65,000/- alongwith compensation. The opposite parties have failed to pay the amount of Rs. 65,000/- to the complainant alongwith compensation, which amounts to deficiency in service.
21.

As a result of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 65,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.3.2009 till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.