National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Worldwide Immigration ... vs Rina Kumari Dhawan on 31 March, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1820 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 04/06/2015 in Appeal No. 81/2015 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. M/S. WORLDWIDE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SCO NO.2415-16, SECTOR 22-C, CHANDIGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RINA KUMARI DHAWAN W/O SH. DEEPAK DHAWAN, R/O. HOUSE NO.1499, PHASE-3B2, MOHALI ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Sunil Goyal, Advocate For the Respondent : MR. PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA Dated : 31 Mar 2016 ORDER In this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (for short "the Immigration Agency"), Opposite Party in the Complaint, challenge is laid to the order, dated 4.6.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 2.3.2015, passed by the District Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh. By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent and holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Immigration Agency, because of its failure to submit immigration case of the Complainant to the Canadian Authorities, had directed it to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs.43,000/- after deducting Rs.20,000/- as processing fee, out of a total sum of Rs.63,000/-, paid by her. The District Forum had also awarded in favour of the Complainant, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental and physical harassment caused to her along with costs of Rs.10,000/-, with a direction that if its order is not complied with within 30 days of its receipt, the Immigration Agency shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the aforesaid amounts, excluding the litigation charges.
When the matter came up for consideration on 27.7.2015, Learned counsel appearing for the Immigration Agency, while asserting that there was no evidence on record in support of the stand of the Complainant that she had paid a sum of Rs.63,000/-, it was stated that the Petitioner was willing to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against a sum of Rs.43,000/, directed to be refunded by the lower fora. In view of the said statement, notice was directed to be issued to the Complainant, who is represented before us.
Thus, the controversy for adjudication is as to whether there is any evidence on record, which may show that the Complainant had in fact paid to the Immigration Agency a sum of Rs.63,000/-. The counsel are ad idem that the real issue to be decided is as to whether or not a sum of Rs.18,000/-, admittedly paid by the Complainant to one, Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai (for short "the GSBC") is to be treated as payment to the Immigration Agency. The stand of the Complainant is that GSBC is nothing but a front company of the Immigration Agency.
While refuting the contention that GSBC is a front company of the Immigration Agency, Learned counsel appearing for it has strongly relied on a decision dated 8.3.2011, rendered by this Commission in Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. vs. Manohar Singh Randhawa - R.P. No.3334-3335/2010. On the other hand, Learned counsel appearing for the Complainant has placed reliance on two decisions of this Commission, in particular, decision dated 7.2.2013 in the case of Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. vs. Gurjinder Singh Jabali - R.P. No.2557/2012, wherein while referring to the decision in Manohar Singh Randhawa's case (supra), it has been held that the entire payment made by the Complainant in those cases, whether to the Immigration Agency or to GSBC, is against the same very contract, under which the Immigration Agency had undertaken to render services to the Complainant in that case. A similar view has been expressed in another order, dated 23.1.2014, in Aditya Kumar vs. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. - R.P. No.3830/2012. Therefore, in view of the later decisions, the decision in Manohar Singh Randhawa's case is of no avail to the Petitioner.
In the light of the afore-noted decisions, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
It is stated that a sum of Rs.30,000/- has already been deposited by the Immigration Agency in this Commission. If that be so, the said amount shall be released to the Complainant forthwith by means of a Demand Draft in her favour. The balance amount due in terms of the orders passed by the lower fora, if any, shall be remitted to the Complainant, by the Immigration Agency, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this order.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER