Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/344

Rajnish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gagandeep Singh Dhaliwal - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Tandon

12 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

              CC No. :                      344 of 2017

Date of Institution:        17.10.2017

Date of Decision :         12.03.2019

 

Rajnish Kumar Singla aged about 51 years son of Mohan Lal Gupta, Kothi No.43, Adarsh Nagar, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

Gagandeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Gurcharan Singh, near Easy Day, Circular Road, Faridkot, District Faridkot (Bright Career, Visa Guide & Institute Prop.).

                                            ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:      Sh Vikas Tandon, Ld Counsel for Complainant,    

                  Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

* * * * * * *

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest and for further directing them to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

 

cc no. -344 of 2017

2                                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP that they are expert in arranging visa for going abroad from competent authority, complainant paid them Rs.30,000/-for this purpose, but without consulting complainant OP made ground in visa application medical illness or disease, which became the reason for rejection of his visa from competent authority. Thereafter, complainant requested OP to do something else for arranging visa, but on this OP asked him to arrange some other consultant and refused to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/-that he charged from complainant. Legal notice served by complainant to OP served no purpose. Despite several requests OP have not refunded his amount of Rs.30,000, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                                         The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                                                On receipt of notice, OP appeared in the Forum through counsel and filed reply, where took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and they have not charged any amount from complainant against unauthorised services, rather they charged disputed amount from complainant for English Coaching Classes and for preparation and submission of visa application and to provide all requisite visa application services like filing the

cc no. -344 of 2017

application, scanning of documents and preparation of all visa related documents. It is averred that complainant was interviewed by Visa Officer and he himself failed to satisfy the Visa Officer regarding his visa application and in all this there is no fault on the part of OP. Approval or rejection of visa file is entirely based on authority of USA Commission. Complainant has filed this complaint with ulterior motive. However, on merits OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is further averred that complainant himself duly signed the application for visa and points raised in it are under the knowledge of complainant and they have no role in acceptance or rejection of visa application. Complainant has concocted a false story and allegations levelled by complainant are totally wrong. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismisal of complaint with costs.

5                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-10 and then, closed the evidence.

6                           In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Singh/Op as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-4 and closed the same on behalf of OP.

7                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for opposite party and have also very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

 

cc no. -344 of 2017

8                                                        From the careful perusal of record and pleadings put forward by respective parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that on assurance OP that they are expert in arranging visa, complainant paid Rs.30,000/-to OP to arrange visa for him as he wanted to go abroad. But in visa application submitted by OP before competent visa authority, OP without asking complainant, mentioned illness the reason for going abroad, due to which application of complainant was rejected and he could not fetch visa. On the contrary, plea taken by OP is that rejection or approval depends upon the performance of applicant before Consular Officer and in present case, complainant gave very bad demonstration before the concerned Consular Officer, which became the reason for rejection of his visa and there is no fault on the part of OP. It is further averred that  they charged Rs.19,120/-as fees for the course of English Special Coaching Class which complainant attended and rest was charged for visa application by their institution. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9                           To prove his case, ld counsel for complainant placed on record copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 that proves the grievance of complainant. Documents Ex C-5 to Ex C-10 clearly prove the pleading of complainant that he himself was an Ayurveda Practitioner and was not suffering from any disease. OP made wrong ground of illness in the application submitted by them for getting the visa for complainant for going abroad. Without consulting complainant, OP gave wrong reason for complainant for going abroad, which became the reason for not sanctioning visa for him. It is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in taking wrong reason for arranging visa for complainant and it is also observed that there is trade mal practice on the part

cc no. -344 of 2017

of OP in not refunding the amount of Rs.30,000/-received by them from complainant. As OP could not arrange visa for complainant, it was their prime duty to refund the amount so charged by them from complainant to him. Despite repeated request and issuance of legal notice, OP did not do not needful and they failed to redress the grievance of complainant.

10                                                      From the above discussion and keeping in view the record placed on file, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP as they failed in arranging visa for complainant and also they did not refund the amount received from complainant. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/-which they charged for complainant on account of fees for arranging visa for him alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 12.03.2019

                                       (Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

                                         Member                               President