State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
World Wide Immigration Consultancy ... vs Dr. Arup Kumar Kar on 28 January, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/308/2011 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/06/2011 in Case No. 264/2009 of District Kolkata-I) 1. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. DLF Centre, Mezzanine Floor, Savitri Cinema Commercial Complex, Greater Kailesh, New Delhi-110048 & Head Off:S.G.O 2415-16, Sector-22C,Chandigarh(UT)160022,India also at FMC Fortune, Block-A-12, 2nd Floor, 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-17. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dr. Arup Kumar Kar. S/o Late Dhrubesh Chandra Kar, 309, Satyen Roy Road, 2nd Floor, P.S. Behala, Kolkata - 700 034. 2. Global Strategic Management Consultancy LCC, Sharjah, Office No. 702, 7th floor, Junior Building (No. 307) Next to KFC, Buheira Corniche, Sharjah UAE ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Shambu Prasad., Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. R. K. Chaumal., Advocate ORDER
28/01/15 HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in CC 264 of 2009 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5000/- and directing the OPs jointly and severally to refund the entire amount deposited by the Complainant and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that OP No.1 is the World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. as a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of rendering professional services with respect to preparation, submission and processing of immigration cases for permanent Canadian Visa on behalf of its customers. In March 2002 the Complainant intended to go abroad for higher studies as well as having the ambition to settle in Canada, he contacted the OP No.1 and on payment of Rs.30,000/- entered into an agreement with the OP No.1 for obtaining Canadian Visa. The OP handed over the copy of the agreement to the Complainant. At the time of applying for immigration for permanent Canadian Visa it was made to understand that the Complainant will have to clear TOEFL with score of 580. Nowhere it was stated in the agreement that the Complainant will have to clear IELTS. The requirement of IELTS, however, became mandatory in all cases filed on or after January 2002 though the clearing of IELTS was much tougher than that of TOEFL. Complainant received one communication from the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi mentioning the file no.B044644445 in respect of his case. The OP could not arrange permanent Canadian Visa as asked for although the Complainant in all paid Rs.1,12,900/-. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that agreement was signed by both parties and the terms thereof are also binding upon the parties. It is contended that the Appellant applied for having permanent Canadian Visa, but could not clear the test of proficiency in English language under IELTS. It is contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and the Learned District Forum was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that there was delay of 6 years and the Appellant could not comply with the terms of the agreement. It is submitted that the Complainant did not get any intimation to appear in the test under IELTS.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. Admittedly, the Complainant entered into an agreement with the OP No.1 for having permanent Canadian Visa. It is also clear that terms of the agreement are binding on the parties. From the letter dated 26/08/08 it appears that Canadian High Commission wrote a letter to the Complainant intimating the file number and requiring the Complainant to produce the documents and also to clear the test of proficiency in English language. It is, therefore, clear that the OP/Appellant submitted the application of the Complainant before the Canadian High Commission and the process started. In the petition of complaint itself at paragraph-7 the Complainant has admitted that clearing of IELTS has become mandatory in all cases filed on or after 1st January 2002. The Canadian High Commission by the said letter also asked the Complainant to clear such examination. The Appellant vide letter dated 05/12/06 also informed the Complainant to note that IELTS was mandatory requirement for all cases filed on or after 01/01/02 and non-submission of IELTS was likely to result in rejection without interview. The Appellant also requested the Complainant/Respondent by the said letter to prepare and appear for IELTS and forward the original result for onward submission to Canadian High Commission at the earliest, but not later than 31/03/07. There was no proof of clearance of IELTS by the Complainant.
Under clauses 9 and 10 of the terms of agreement it has been mentioned that the Company will not refund any of the total fee if the client withdraws the case at any stage and the client does not attach the clearance of passing the test in English language with the required score of 580. In paragraph 14 of the complaint it has been stated that the Complainant intimated the OP No.1 that he was not interested in immigration and permanent residence at Canada and asked the Appellant to refund amount with interest. Evidently, therefore, the Complainant withdrew his case and under clause 10(c) of the agreement the Company was not liable to make any refund of amount of the fees paid by the Complainant. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and the Complainant/Respondent is not entitled to get any relief. The Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint.
The Appeal is allowed. We set aside the impugned judgment and order. The petition of complaint is dismissed.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER