State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Worldwide Immigration Consultancy ... vs Hardeep Singh on 12 July, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.914 of 2006
Date of institution : 17.7.2006
Date of decision : 12.7.2011
1. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, A-12, Industrial
Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
2. Branch Manager, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited,
SCO No.112, District Shopping Centre, Near ICICI Bank, Amritsar.
(Both appellants represented through authorized representative Shri Rajiv
Bajaj).
.......Appellants
Versus
Hardeep Singh s/o S. Jarnail Singh, r/o Gali No.3, Labh Nagar, Ram Tirath Road,
PO-Khalsa College, Amritsar.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 17.5.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri Raman Walia, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Version of the respondent:
The version of the respondent was that he was interested in settling in Canada. He saw the hoardings displayed by the appellants. Allured by these advertisements the respondent went to the office of the appellants. He was assured by the appellants that he would be sent to Canada on immigration basis. The respondent was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.45,000/-. The respondent accordingly deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- with the appellants on 26.2.2001 and First Appeal No.914 of 2006. 2 another amount of Rs.15,000/- vide bank draft dated 23.2.2001 in favour of Canadian High Commission. The respondent had also deposited a sum of 700US$ on 19.10.2001. The respondent was not sent abroad and the appellants also refused to refund the money to the respondent. Hence the complaint. Version of the appellants:
2. The appellants filed the written reply and contested the case.
Proceedings before the District Forum:
3. The parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
4. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/-
vide impugned order dated 17.5.2006 and directed the appellants to refund a sum of Rs.45,000/- and 700 US$ to the respondent.
5. Hence the appeal.
Discussion:
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also submitted that the appellants at the most can be compelled to refund the processing charges and not any other amount. The reliance was placed on the judgment of this Commission dated 31.3.2006 passed in FA No.1560 of 2005 "M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited and anr. vs. Gurwinder Singh Khokher". Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission dated 8.3.2011 passed in Revision Petition No.3334 of 2010 "Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Manohar Singh Randhawa" by which the appellants were directed to refund the deposited amount.
7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
8. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. First Appeal No.914 of 2006. 3
9. The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- with the appellants on 26.2.2001. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was deposited on 23.2.2001 in favour of Canadian High Commission, New Delhi and 700US$ on 19.10.2001.
10. Some efforts were admittedly made by the appellants for immigration of the respondent to Canada. The respondent at the most can be held entitled to the refund of Rs.30,000/- which was deposited by the respondent with the appellants on 26.2.2001. The other amounts were not received by the appellants.
11. Hon'ble National Commission in Manohar Singh Randhawa's case (supra) was pleased to observe as under:-
"5. Having considered the respective submissions, we must at once hold that the orders of the for a below directing he petitioner company to refund the fee of 1500 US dollars deposited by the complainants with the Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Canada Inc. cannot be upheld in any view of the matter because the said amount was paid by the complainants under agreements signed by the complainants under the advice of the petitioner. Since these amounts were not received by the petitioner and were received by a third party, i.e. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Canada Inc. and that they are not privy to the said agreement, no liability can be enfastened on the petitioner for the refund of the said amount. The said Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Canada Inc. has not been made a party in the complaint and, therefore, we are not aware as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of that company or what is their stand.First Appeal No.914 of 2006. 4
6. Coming to the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and assuming that the petitioner has failed to live up its promise/assurance in arranging the interview of the complainants at the Canadian Embassy within the stipulated period of 18-24 months, at best the petitioner can be asked to refund the amounts received by them as fee/charges for rendering the service as envisaged in the aforesaid agreement.
7. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed and the impugned orders passed by the fora below in so far they have directed the petitioner to refund the same of 1500 US dollars along with fee/charges of Rs.30,000/45,000/- received by them is hereby set aside and the liability of the petitioner is restricted to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- in Revision Petition No.3334/2010 and Rs.45,000/- in Revision Petition No.3335/2010. Besides that, we do not propose to award any compensation or impose any cost. So far as the amount of 1500 US dollars deposited by the complainants with Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Canada Inc. is concerned, we simply observe that it would be for the complainants to work out their remedy in accordance with law. Revision petitions stand disposed of in these terms."
12. Keeping in view the facts of this case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, this appeal is partly accepted. The respondent is held entitled to the amount of Rs.30,000/-. Costs of Rs.1,000/- are maintained so also the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
First Appeal No.914 of 2006. 5
13. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 17.7.2006. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
14. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
15. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent.
16. The arguments in this case were heard on 7.7.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER July 12 , 2011 Bansal