DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 4 of 4-01-2022

Decided on : 31-01-2022

Jagsir Singh Jawandha S/o Late Sh. Malkit Singh R/o House No. 52, Village Sivian, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant

Versus

Aastha International through its Manager/Head/Authorized Person

SCF-80, 2^nd Floor, Phase-2, Mohali, Tehsil & District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

....Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President.

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present

For the complainant : Smt. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate.

For the opposite party : Not summoned.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is a Graduate Civil Engineer and employed as Proejct Engineer at Ganpati Townships Ltd., Bathinda, since 2010.

2. It is alleged that in the year 2018, opposite party given advertisement on Social Media Platform to the effect that Company is providing Permanent Residency (PR) at Canada through program being run by Government of Saskatchewan State of Canada under the name of Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP), Manjot Kaur, representative of opposite party conveyed the complainant that he is eligible to go to Canada on PR basis and asked him to deposit Rs. 20,000/-. Believing the contents of advertisement to be true, complainant applied for International Skilled Worker with Job Offer under SINP through opposite party and deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 12-6-2018 in the account of opposite party and it was decided that rest of the amount will be paid after receiving Sponsorship letter.

3. It is also alleged that on 20-6-2018, Manjot Kaur, AR of the opposite party intimated the complainant that job sponsorship letter for him has been received and asked him to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as job sponsorship letter fee and Rs. 10,000/- as previous balance. The complainant deposited Rs. 20,000/- in the Company's account on 20-6-2018 and on the next day, complainant signed job sponsorship letter.

4. It is further alleged that on 26-6-2018, AR of opposite party conveyed complainant that his SINP account has been generated and in order to avail login ID and password, he has to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the bank and accordingly, complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 26-6-2018. Thereafter, opposite party informed the complainant that Canadian Government has sent his job approval form and he should visit company's office at Mohali to execute a contract. On 31-8-2018, complainant executed the required contract and deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash with the company. After receiving Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash from complainant, behaviour of above mentioned company's representative changed all together.

5. The complainant further alleged that in order to get the things verified, complainant inquired from Government of Saskatchewan, SINP Program Integrity Unit, Immigration, Employment and Career Deveolopment Division regarding authenticiy of job sponsorship letter and job approval form issued by opposite party to the complainant. Government of Saskatchewan Canada replied to the queries of complainant vide e-mail dated 28-3-2019 whereby it was conveyed that said letter was not issued by Government of Saskatchewan and is fraudulent. They also conveyed vide said e-mail that complainant does not have an active application in their data base. The complainant forwarded this information, on the next day, to Manjot Kaur AR of the opposite party, on which she flatly refused to acknowledge the information as correct and true, rather she resorted to give false assurance to the complainant while saying that complainant's case is proceeding on correct lines and he should wait for some time. It was falsly assured to complainant that very soon he is going to receive Nomination Letter. The complainant made repeated calls to the opposite party to know about the present status of his case and nomination letter, but to no effect.

6. It is further alleged that when it became clear to the complainant that opposite party has committed a cheating with him through fraud, deception and unfair trade practice, after repeated requests of the complainant, opposite party returned Rs. 1,45,000/- only to him while illegally retaining Rs. 45,000/- with it. The opposite party taking illegal, undue and arbitrary benefit of its dominating position, procured an undertaking from the complainant to the effect that he has received full and final payment from the opposite party and will not pursue this matter with any authority. The said undertaking was extracted by opposite party from complainant under coercion and presure and as such, same is not binding upon him.

7. The complainant further alleged that opposite party has committed a fraud and unfair trade practice upon the complainant through forgery & deception. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite party in this regard, but to no effect. The complainant alleged that opposite party has committed a cheating with him through fraud, deceiption and unfair trade practice.

8. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest @ 12% P.A. till payment, as compensation for financial loss and mental pain, agony and harassment etc. , Hence, this complaint.

9. Preliminary hearing is given to the learned counsel for complainant and perused record placed on file by the complainant.

10. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that opposite party allured him that complainant is eligible to go to Canada on Permanent Residency basis through International Skilled Worker with Job Offer scheme being run under SINP. Being allured, as per requirement of the opposite party, complainant deposited total Rs. 1,90,000/- with the opposite party on different intervals. The opposite party provided him Job sponsorship letter and got executed contract with the complainant. The opposite party further assured the complainant that Canadian Government has sent his job approval form.

11. The complainant alleged that after receiving an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- from complainant, opposite party stopped attending telephone calls of the complainant. This act of the opposite party created doubt in the mind of the complainant and to get the things verifed, he inquired from Government of Saskatchewan, SINP Program Integrity Unit, Immigration, Employment and Career Deveolopment Division regarding authenticiy of job sponsorship letter and job approval form issued by opposite party to the complainant. Government of Saskatchewan Canada replied to the queries of complainant vide e-mail dated 28-3-2019 whereby it was conveyed that said letter was not issued by Government of Saskatchewan and is fraudulent. They also conveyed vide said e-mail that complainant does not have an active application in their data base. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite party to return his hard earned money then only opposite party returned Rs. 1,45,000/- to him while illegally retaining Rs. 45,000/- and procured an undertaking from the complainant to the effect that he has received full and final payment from the opposite party and will not pursue this matter with any authority.

12. The submission of complainant is that job sponsorship letter and job approval form issued by opposite party are fraudulent and in this way, the opposite party has committed a cheating with him through fraud, forgery and deception. The opposite party returned Rs. 1,45,000/- and procured undertaking from him under coercion and pressure.

13. Therefore, keeping in view the allegation of the complainant in the case in hand, this Commission of the considered opinion that elaborate evidence is required to arrive at a conclusion whether the documents provided by opposite party to complainant are original or fraudulent and if fraudulent, from where and how opposite party procured those documents, hence genuineness of the documents has to be determined and under what circumstances the complainant gave above mentioned undertaking. The complainant alleged that opposite party has cheated and played fraud with him. Therefore, complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which require elaborate oral or documentary evidence being adduced and protracted trial in order to fully and satisfactorily adjudicate upon the complicated issues, which cannot be adjudicated in time bound proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The procedure under Consumer Protection Act is of summary nature. This Commission in summary procedure is unable to adjudicate such questions.

14. Therefore in view of foregoing discussions, this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Thus this complaint is hereby dismissed in limine. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/authority for the redressal of his grievance, if so advised and permitted by law.

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    31-01-2022

    (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member

     

    (Paramjeet Kaur)

    Member