State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Wwics Global Law Offices Pvt.Ltd. vs Sandeep Rathi S/O. Satveer Singh on 26 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/232/2025
(Against the Order dated 1st May 2025 in Complaint DC/44/CC/441/2024 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh district commission)
M/S WWICS GLOBAL LAW OFFICES PVT.LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - SCO 2415-2416 THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS. , NEAR AROMA
HOTELCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
BALJIT SINGH SANDHU MANAGING DIRECTOR
PRESENT ADDRESS - WWICS GLOBAL LAW OFFICES PVT LTD , INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-VI , A-12 , S.A.S NAGAR,PUNJAB.
DEVINDER SANDHU DIRECTOR
PRESENT ADDRESS - WWICS GLOBAL LAW OFFICES PVT LTD , INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-VI , A-12 , S.A.S NAGAR,PUNJAB.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
SANDEEP RATHI S/o. Satveer singh
PRESENT ADDRESS - VPO SARAHAN PACHHAD , NEAS BUS STAND , SARAHAN KALAN ,
SIRMAUR,HIMACHAL PRADESH.
PARVINDER SINGH SANDHU DIRECTOR
PRESENT ADDRESS - WWICS GLOBAL LAW OFFICES PVT LTD , INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-VI , A-12 , S.A.S NAGAR,PUNJAB.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
RAMAN WALIA (Advocate)
RAMAN WALIA (Advocate)
RAMAN WALIA (Advocate)
DATED: 26/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench) First Appeal No. : 232 of 2025 Date of Institution : 23.07.2025 Date of Decision : 26.12.2025
1. M/s WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd. SCO 2415-16, Sector 22, Near Aroma Hotel, Chandigarh-160022, through its Directors 2nd Address: WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase VI, Mohali, Punjab.
2. Baljit Singh Sandhu, Managing Director of WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt Ltd. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.
3. Devinder Sandhu, Director of WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd. A-12. Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.
4. Anuj Kaushal, Director of WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase -VI, Mohali.
...Appellants Versus
1. Sandeep Rathi, S/o Satveer Singh, R/o Near Bus Stand, VPO Sarahan. Pachhad, Sarahan Kalan (263/1), Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh 173024
2. Parvinder Singh Sandhu, Director of WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd. A-12.
Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.
.....Respondents Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 01.05.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.441/2024.
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER
For the appellants : Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate (on VC)
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Yaman, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : None
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.05.2025, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as "the Ld. District Commission"), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/441/2024 by directing the Opposite Parties(appellants & respondent No.2 herein) as under ;
"In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
(i)to pay Rs.2,18,300/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the respective dates of its deposit onwards
(ii)to pay 30,000/- to the complainant/s as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
(iii)to pay 10,000/- to the complainant/s as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization, over and above payment of ligation expenses."
2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant that Opposite Parties No.1 is Private Limited Company registered under Companies Act and Opposite Nos.2 to 5 are its Directors providing services of visa for different countries. Being allured by the advertisements of the Opposite Parties, the complainant approached them for availing their services to arrange visa for Poland. On 11.01.2023, he paid Rs.35,400/- against receipt (Annexure C-1) to the Opposite Parties for the services to be provided by them and he was assured that the visa process will start shortly. Thereafter, he received a call from the Opposite Parties regarding requirement of documents for Visa process for which they demanded another payment and upon this, he paid Rs.1,00,300/- on 17.01.2023 to the Opposite Parties which was acknowledged against receipt (Annexure C-2) and he was assured that his form and whole process will be got done within 6-12 months. Thereafter, he received a call from an employee namely Deepali of the Opposite Parties who asked him to come on 31.01.2023 for some documentation and to bring payment of 21,000/- and on this he visited the office of the Opposite Parties and paid Rs.21,000/- in cash. However, no receipt was issued qua the aforesaid payment. An agreement was executed between the complainant and Opposite Parties on 23.01.2023 (Annexure C-3) through which the Opposite Parties had agreed to provide the visa services to him. Again on 03.02.2023, he paid Rs.1,53,400/- to the employees of the Opposite Parties as embassy fee in cash but no receipt was issued. He was again called by Opposite Party No.2 to further pay an amount of Rs.82,600/- and on 14.03.2024, the employee of the Opposite Parties namely Sanmeet Kaur Dhillon further received Rs.82,600/- from him against receipt dated 14.03.2024(Annexure C-4). In this manner, he, in all, paid Rs.3,92,700/- to the Opposite Parties . He requested the Opposite Parties to arrange visa as agreed and vide email (Annexure C-6), he was assured by the Opposite Parties that the same would be provided shortly to him. Subsequently, he tried to contact the Opposite Parties through various modes by sending text messages on whatapps in the month of June as well as July, 2024 but no proper response was given by the Opposite Parties and finally, he requested the Opposite Parties for refund of the amount paid but with no result. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission.
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties appeared before the Learned District Commission and contested the complaint. In their written version, besides taking preliminary objections of maintainability and non-joinder of parties, it was admitted that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for assisting him for visa but denied that he had paid Rs.3,92,700/- by alleging that in fact he had paid only Rs.1,70,000/- as professional fees and Rs.30,600/- as service tax which was deposited with the Government Authorities. It was further admitted that the agreement dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure R-1) was executed between the parties. It was denied that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.21,000/- and Rs.1,53,400/- in cash to the Opposite parties. It was also denied that the document (Annexure C-5) was ever issued by the Opposite Parties, rather the same was self created document by the complainant. The cash payment was strictly prohibited by the Opposite Parties even as per the agreement dated 23.01.2023 (Annexure R-1) which specifically provided that no cash was acceptable. It was further averred that the Opposite Parties were always ready and willing to process the immigration case of the complainant in the most professional way but it was the complainant who was not cooperating for further process of his immigration case. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Complaint of the Respondent/ Complainant, as noted in the opening para of this order.
5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1,2,3 &5.
6. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
7. The case of the appellants is that the Learned District Commission has failed to consider the fact that as per Clause 9 of the Contract of Engagement dated 23.01.2023 executed between the complainant/respondent and the appellant company, the company or any of its agents do not give the client any guarantee of obtaining immigrant visa, other than providing advice and representing him/her in best possible way. It was contended that as per clauses 5 & 6 of the Contract of Engagement, the respondent was not entitled to any refund being a case of disinterest and non-cooperation by him. It was further contended that an amount of Rs.30,600/- was paid as service tax and as such the same was non-refundable as the same had gone into Government account. It was further contended that as per Clause 5(iv) of the Contract of Engagement, an amount of Rs.77,000/- was totally non-refundable in case work permit was not issued by the concerned authority in 12 months period after receipt of the required documents from the respondent. However, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant contended that the order passed by the Learned District Commission is quite just and reasonable, as such, does not call for any interference.
8. The respondent made first payment of Rs.35400/- to the appellants vide receipt Annexure C-1 dated 11.01.2023. Contract of Engagement Ex.R-1/Annexure A-1 was allegedly executed by the appellant with the respondent but its perusal reveals that it is not signed by the respondent/complainant. Even otherwise the clauses of the Contract of Engagement would be applicable if the contract is signed by both the parties and the appellants have complied with their part of obligation of processing the papers within time prescribed. As regards tax paid to the government, no such certificate from the concerned authority has been placed on record to prove that the said tax had actually been paid by the appellant to the Government. The learned District Commission while discarding the plea of the appellants that the respondent was not cooperating with them and had not adhered to the terms and conditions of the agreement by seeking refund and failed to perform his duties as per the agreement, and as such, was not entitled to any relief, rightly observed that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants in arranging visa. Para (v) of the impugned order reads as under;
"However, there is no force in the submissions of the OPs as the OPs have failed to adduce any convincing evidence in order to show that they have ever approached the concerned embassy/authority for arranging the visa to the complainant for which they have admittedly charged an amount of Rs.2,18,300/- from the complainant, hence the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part especially when they have even failed to refund the paid amount of Rs.2,18,300/- to the complainant."
The Learned District Commission after considering all the aspects and disallowing the amount allegedly deposited in cash by the respondent, held the appellants liable to refund of Rs.2,18,300/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit onwards, besides awarding compensation and costs of litigation to the respondent/complainant
9. In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of law on the point and does not suffer from any illegality and perversity warranting interference of this Commission.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld
11. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
12. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
..................
PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J RAJESH KUMAR ARYA MEMBER