DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/240

Date of Institution   : 04.04.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 17.08.2022

 

Mr. Lalit Kumar son of Sh. Datta Ram Mishra resident of H.No. 3773, Bagichi Mohan Singh, Ghee Mandi, Amritsar.   

                 …Complainant Versus

Worldwide Global Law Offices Private Ltd. (WWICS) through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer service through its Branch Office at SCO-112, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Branch Manager. 

              …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Deepinder Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sunny Sehgal Adv counsel for opposite party.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT): 

 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against Worldwide Global Law Offices Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred as opposite party).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has applied for the immigration and taken/hired the services of the opposite party, who boosts itself to be the best service provider for the immigration purposes to CANADA. It is further alleged that the opposite party assured the complainant that they would provide all the inputs required for the immigration of the complainant to Canada. The opposite party further undertake to do all the paper work to be submitted to the Canadian Embassy on behalf of complainant as they are conversant with the rules and regulations of the immigration to the Canada. The complainant completed all the paper work and submitted the same through the opposite party required for the immigration purposes. It is further alleged that the opposite party charged Rs. 36,300/- and Rs. 5,000/- on 27.11.2017 from the complainant and US $ 100 from the complainant for the immigration purposes and Rs. 10,000/- for the paper work. But the opposite party putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other by stating that the case is under the kind consideration of Canadian Government, but no document to the said effect has been provided to the complainant that his immigration would be done within the span of six months which proved to be false and the application of the complainant was rejected on 24.1.2018 but the status on the opposite party's website is showing as application under process.  The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To refund the amount of Rs. 51,300/- and US $ 100 or equivalent amount in Indian Currency alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of payment till realization. 

ii)To pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written reply by taking preliminary objections. It is alleged that the complainant submitted his immigration package vide email dated 25.12.2017 and the case of the complainant was assessed and prepared in the best possible way and the application was prepared on 16.1.2018. It is further alleged that the Immigration Authorities vide their requirement letter dated 24.1.2018 had expressed their intention to refuse the application of the complainant for Temporary Resident Visa. The complainant had paid total amount of Rs. 35,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 6,300/- which is non refundable) to the opposite party vide receipt dated 27.11.2017. As per clause 10(i) of the said Contract, it was agreed between the parties that the service provided by the opposite party being professional in nature, the entire fee for the services provided is non-refundable, the complainant is not entitled to any refund. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that it is purely the discretion of the Visa Authorities to approve the application or reject the same, the opposite party has no domain on the authorities and no assurance was ever made that the case of the complainant would be done within in the span of six months. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of the payment receipts Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3, copy of the refusal letter Ex.C-4, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.   

5. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Bajaj, authorized representative Ex.O.P1/A, copy of agreement Ex.O.P1, copy of the email Ex.O.P2, copy of the application for visitor visa Ex.O.P3, copy of the letter dated 17.1.2018 Ex.O.P4, copy of letter dated 24.1.2018 Ex.O.P5, copy of the retainer tax invoice Ex.O.P6, copy of the official receipt Ex.O.P7 and closed the evidence. 

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has applied for the immigration and taken/hired the services of the opposite party, who boosts itself to be the best service provider for the immigration purposes to CANADA. It is further argued that the opposite party assured the complainant that they would provide all the inputs required for the immigration of the complainant to Canada and the opposite party further undertake to do all the paper work to be submitted to the Canadian Embassy on behalf of complainant as they are conversant with the rules and regulations of the immigration to Canada. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued that the complainant completed all the paper work and submitted the same through the opposite party required for the immigration purposes. It is further argued that the opposite party charged Rs. 36,300/- and Rs. 5,000/- on 27.11.2017 i.e. Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 from the complainant and US $ 100 from the complainant for the immigration purposes i.e. Ex.C-5 and Rs. 10,000/- for the paper work but the opposite party putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other by stating that the case is under the kind consideration of Canadian Government, but no document to the said effect has been provided to the complainant that his immigration would be done within the span of six months which proved to be false and the application of the complainant was rejected on 24.1.2018 i.e. Ex.C-4 but the status on the opposite party's website is showing as application under process and the above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant submitted his immigration package vide email dated 25.12.2017 and the case of the complainant was assessed and prepared in the best possible way and the application was prepared on 16.1.2018. It is further argued that the Immigration Authorities vide their requirement letter dated 24.1.2018 Ex.O.P5 had expressed their intention to refuse the application of the complainant for Temporary Resident Visa. Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that the complainant had paid total amount of Rs. 35,000/- (excluding service tax of Rs. 6,300/- which is non refundable) to the opposite party vide receipt dated 27.11.2017 i.e. Ex.OP6 & Ex.O.P7. It is further argued that as per clause 10(i) of the said Contract, it was agreed between the parties that the service provided by the opposite party being professional in nature, the entire fee for the services provided is non-refundable, the complainant is not entitled to any refund. It is further argued that it is purely the discretion of the Visa Authorities to approve the application or reject the same, the opposite party has no domain on the authorities and no assurance was ever made that the case of the complainant would be done within in the span of six months.

9. From the perusal of the file it is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant has applied for the immigration and taken the services of the opposite party. It is also admitted fact between the parties that the opposite party has charged Rs. 36,300/- and Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant on 27.11.2017 which is proved from Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 and Ex.O.P6. It is also admitted fact between the parties that the complainant paid USD 100 to the opposite party i.e. Ex.O.P7. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party assured the complainant that they would provide all the inputs required for the immigration of the complainant to Canada and the opposite party further undertake to do all the paper work to be submitted to the Canadian Embassy on behalf of complainant as they are conversant with the rules and regulations of the immigration to Canada. But the opposite party putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other by stating that the case is under the kind consideration of Canadian Government and the application of the complainant was rejected on 24.1.2018 i.e. Ex.C-4, however the status on the opposite party's website is showing as application is under process. Therefore, from the above said facts it is cleared that the opposite party has failed to fulfill the requirement/paper work as required by the Immigration Authorities because it was duty of the opposite party to do the paper work and  provide proper information to the Immigration Authorities on behalf of complainant for which the opposite party has charged from the complainant. Moreover, the letter dated 24 January, 2018 Ex.C-4 shows that the application of the complainant has been refused by the Immigration Authorities by stating that “your application does not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations”. So, it is proved that it was the duty of the opposite party to complete the paper work as per requirement of the Immigration Authorities. 

10. The Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.) and another Versus Jereena Job P reported in 2014 (2) CPJ-710 held as under.-

“Rejection of visa application form on ground that job experience certificate was not sufficient-Non refund of fee- Deficiency in service alleged-Complaint allowed by fora below-Challenged by revision-Held, petitioners did not performed their duties diligently due to which application form of respondent was rejected-Deficiency on part of petitioners proved-Complaint rightly allowed-Revision petition dismissed devoid of merits with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 

Similar view has also been taken by the  Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. and another Versus Gurjinder Singh Jabbal reported in 2013 (2) CPJ-70. 

11. In view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission mentioned above, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 36,300/- and Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the complainant with the opposite party vide Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 5,500/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.    

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       17th Day of August, 2022

 

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member