State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S World Wide Immigration Consultancy ... vs Mrs Parul K Adhvaryu on 8 June, 2022
Details DD MM YY
Date of disposal 08 06 2022
Date of filing 02 07 2015
Duration 06 11 06
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.
COURT NO: 04
APPEAL NO. 783 of 2015
1. WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd.
Branch office: 203, Ashoka Complex,
Nr. Golden Triangle, Stadium road,
Ahmedabad.
2. WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd.
Head office: SCO No. 2415-16, Sector-22-c,
Chandigarh (India) ... Appellants.
V/s.
1. Mrs. Parul K. Adhvaryu,
2. Mr. Ketan P. Adhvaryu,
Both residing at B/702, Sarthak Tower,
Nr. Sujal Flats, Opp. Contryyard Marriott,
Ramdevnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad-15. ...Respondents.
APPEAL NO. 810 of 2015
1. Mrs. Parul K. Adhvaryu,
2. Mr. Ketan P. Adhvaryu,
Both residing at B/702, Sarthak Tower,
Nr. Sujal Flats, Opp. Contryyard Marriott,
Ramdevnagar, Satellite, Ahmedabad-15. ... Appellants.
V/s.
1. WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd.
Branch office: 203, Ashoka Complex,
Nr. Golden Triangle, Stadium road,
Ahmedabad.
2. WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd.
Head office: SCO No. 2415-16, Sector-22-c,
Chandigarh (India) ...Respondents.
=============================================================
BEFORE: Mr. I.D. Patel, Judicial Member,
Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Member.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Anand Parikh, L.A. for the appellant/Immigration Co.
Mrs. Parul K. Adhvaryu, Party-in-person/original complainant.
=============================================================
Page 1 of 13
R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015
ORDER BY DR. J.G. MECWAN, MEMBER.
JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (Add) on 21.04.2015 in Complaint No. 409 of 2014 the original complainants and opponents have filed the present Cross-Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission. For the sake of the convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature.
2. In this matter two Cross-Appeals have been filed against the order of the ld. Dist. Commission Ahmedabad (Add) in C.C. No. 409/2014. As in the both the Appeals facts, arguments and law points are same, this Commission has decided to dispose of these two Appeals by a common judgment.
3. The facts which led the appellant to file this Appeal in a nutshell are as under: It is the case of the complainant that complainants have contacted opponent Immigration Service Provider Company on date 03.10.2006 and as per the say of the opponent's Manager complainants opted 'Special Spot Payment Plan' (Gold package) and paid the fees of Rs. 68,632/- including Rs. 22,000/- for the Canada Immigration Advance Visa fee to the opponent. It is further submitted by the complainant that opponent's Manager assured that all the legal procedure will be completed within a year and visa will be obtained shortly and thereafter necessary facilities of residence and employment will be also provided to them. Thereafter complainant has submitted necessary Forms for obtaining visa to the opponent and the said File has been sent to High Commission of Canada on date 14.11.2006 bearing File No. 38601. It is submitted by the complainant that at that time opponent has informed that it will take 48 to 54 months of waiting and on Page 2 of 13 R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015 opposing for the same, opponent assured that it would be obtained earlier within a year. It is further the case of the complainant that complainant No. 01 has cleared the IELTS Examination in the year 2007 for which she incurred the expenses of Rs. 7,200/- and Rs. 5,000/- for coaching classes. It is further submitted by complainant that in the year 2013 opponent informed that PR File has not been accepted by the Govt. of Canada and she had to bear the expenses of US $700 for the necessary legal procedure against the decision of Canada Govt. but complainant has denied for the same and thereafter visa immigration fees of Rs. 31,893/- has been refunded to the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that after above events opponent keep assuring complainant that her fees of Rs. 68,632/- will be refunded to her but has not paid it to the complainant on several demands and therefore due to such deficiency in service complainant has filed Consumer Compliant before learned District Commission Ahmedabad (Add).
4. Being dissatisfied with the deficiency in service by the opponent, complainant has filed Consumer Complaint before the ld. District Commission Ahmedabad (Add) for getting the fees paid to the opponent amounting to Rs. 68,632/- with 12% interest from date 13.12.2006 along with the IELTS examination fees of Rs. 12,500/- and prayed for Rs. 15,000/- for the compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of the Complaint.
5. After hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after considering the documents and evidences, the learned District Commission allowed the Complaint of the complainant.
Page 3 of 13
R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned District Commission, Ahmedabad (Add) the original complainant and opponents have filed the present cross Appeals before this Commission on the ground stated in the appeal memo.
7. Heard ld. Adv. Mr. Anand Parikh for the appellant Immigration Company and Mrs. Parul K. Adhvaryu, Party-in-person/original complainant at length. Perused the record of the case, judgment submitted by respondent/original complainant and order of the ld. District Commission.
8. First of all learned Advocate Mr. Anand Parikh has appeared on behalf of the appellant Immigration Company and requested that all the contents and averments mentioned in Appeal Memo shall be considered as the appellant's arguments in this case and the same has been given due consideration by this Commission. It has been submitted in the Appeal Memo that the present case is a case of change in immigration rules and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of Clause 8 & 9 of the Contract of Engagement dated 30.09.2006 wherein the complainant had agreed that the answering respondent No. 01 & 02 will not be held liable for any delay occurring due to the backlog of the cases or for any other reason at the Visa post. However as a bad luck of the complainant the Canadian Government introduced a new Act namely Jobs, Growth and Long term prosperity Act which became a law on 29.06.2012 under which all the applications that were made before 27.02.2008 were terminated by the operation of law and thus it is clear that appellant Immigration Company is no-where deficient in service and have already performed all the duties which was required as per the Contract. It is further submitted that the amount of US $400 has been alleged to have been paid by the complainant Page 4 of 13 R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015 to M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy which is a distinct and separate legal entity and complainant paid Rs. 18,632/- to M/s. Global Strategic Business Consultancy and the said amount cannot be claimed by the complainant from appellant Immigration Company and therefore also the Compliant of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any refund in view of Clause 10 of the Contract of Engagement wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the services being provided by the company being technical/professional and the professional fee is non-refundable and therefore there is no any deficiency in service of the Immigration Company and therefore complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned Adv. Mr. Parikh concluded that the order passed by the ld. District Commission is not just and proper and therefore it should be quashed and set aside by allowing this Appeal.
10. Upon service of the notice original complainant Smt. Parul K. Adhvaryu, Party-in-person has appeared and vehemently argued out the ld. Dist. Commission had not even considered the appreciable evidence and the judgments stating the same situation cases under which the opponents have done same injustice to the complainants by giving deficiency in their services. Moreover under such judgments which included National Commission judgments also the complainants have received their desired amount of advance fees with interest and they were given huge amount for the mental agony and IELT exam fees and therefore it is injustice done to the complainants by honoring them with the label "reasonable amount" and deducting Total Rs. 31,132/- i.e. Rs. 18,632/- (Rs.68,632/- - 50,000/-) from their advanced fees amount and deducting RS. 12,500/- for IELTS Page 5 of 13 R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015 Exam. It is further submitted that the ld. Dist. Commission may have deducted the above said amount of Global Strategic Business Consultancy of Dubai which is worth amount Rs. 18,632/- and this amount of fees are also advanced fees, so how come the reasonable amount clause is being applied by ld. Dist. Commission! Moreover ld. Dist. Commission has not considered the judgments under which the complainants had been given fees amount for IELTS Exam and here also the complainants have just demanded Rs. 12,500/- the reasonable amount of fees which is not being given to the complainants. It is further submitted that ld. Dist. Commission has done injustice to the complainants which is not acceptable by deducting the fees of Rs. 12,500/- for IELTS exam and hence this Commission should modify the order passed by the ld. Dist. Commission and should enhance the same. In support of her argument Smt. Adhvaryu has submitted following judgments:
(I) Civil Appeal No. 5785/2019 (SC), (II) Smt. Vunna Visali Vs. State of A.P. (Andhrapradesh HC) (III) R.P. No. 4695/2013 (NC), (IV) R.P. No. 2555/2013 (NC), (V) R.P. No. 2666/2012 (NC), (VI) R.P. No. 1259/2014 (NC), (VII) R.P. No. 3830/2012 (NC), (VIII) R.P. No. 1379/2010 (NC), (IX) R.P. No. 45/2007 (NC), (X) F.A. No. 90/2012 (State Commission Chandigarh, U.T.), (XI) Appeal No. 168/2010 (State Commission Chandigarh, U.T.), (XII) Appeal No. 561/2016 (State Commission West Bengal), (XIII) Appeal No. 245/2010 (State Commission Gujarat), (XIV) Appeal No. 636/2010 (State Commission Gujarat), (XV) Appeal No. 3315/2012 (State Commission Gujarat), Along with the above judgments Smt. Adhvaryu has submitted the judgments of various ld. Dist. Commissions - Ahmedabad (City & Add.) and Vadodara but as the said judgments are passed by the learned District Page 6 of 13 R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015 Commission, they are not binding to this Commission and therefore the said judgments are not required to be mentioned herein.
11. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival contentions made by both the parties. In the present case original complainant has approached this Commission by way of the present Appeal for enhancing the awarded amount passed by the ld. Dist. Commission. Per contra it is an averment of the opponent Immigration Company that as Canadian Government introduced a new Act which became a law later on under which all the applications were terminated by the operation of law and thus opponent Immigration Company is not at all liable for any kind of refund amount in this case as per the provisions of the contract made between the parties herein.
12. We have scrutinized the record of this case. It is an admitted fact that complainant has paid total amount of Rs. 68,632/- to the opponent Immigration Company under 'Special Spot Payment Plan' (Gold Package) but after submitting a PR File before Canada High Commission in year 2006, later on in the year 2013 opponent Immigration Company has informed the complainant that her PR File has not been accepted by the Canada Govt. and accordingly her fees of Rs. 31,893/- towards PR File has been returned to her. However it is alleged by the complainant that opponent Immigration Company has not even commenced the process of obtaining visa nor took care to put the PR File before any authority and with malafide intention extort the money from the complainant.
13. We have carefully gone through the documentary evidences produced in this case. Copy of receipts issued by Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. are on record at page no. 58-63 wherein it has been Page 7 of 13 R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015 specifically shown that total Rs. 68,632/- [Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 18,632/-] has been paid by the complainant and it is pertinent to note here that complainant has not availed any services even though paying such plenty of amount to the opponent Immigration Company. Moreover complainant also prayed to reimburse her IELTS examination expenses from the opponent Immigration company which she spent by trusting the say of the opponent Immigration Company.
14. In the present case it is an averment of the complainant that opponent Immigration Company has misled her by informing that she can get Canada PR within a one year even though there was a waiting period of 48 to 54 months at that time and consequently later in the year 2013 opponent informed her that her PR File could not be accepted from the Canadian Government. We have gone through the 'Test Report Form of IELTS' of complainant which is on record at page no. 77 which clearly proves that complainant has appeared in the IELTS examination in the year 2007 and it is well-known fact that 'overall Band Score' of such examination is only valid for 02 years. However it is required to be noted here that if opponent would have informed the complainant that her PR File will take 48 to 54 months of waiting then obviously complainant would not have applied for the said examination earlier in the year 2007 which fact per se indicates that opponent Immigration Company has falsely made assurances that she can get PR visa within a one year and misled her for fulfilling its malafide intention by dragging her into immigration process through opponent Immigration Company and therefore in the opinion of this Commission by making such false assurances opponent Immigration Company has committed 'Cheating' under Section 420 of Cr.PC and also adopted unfair Page 8 of 13 R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015 trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Jas Vs. State Of U.P., shows the ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating which are applicable in this matter also which is reproduced below:
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
(ii)(a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii)In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
15. Moreover opp. Immigration Company has falsely made assurances to the complainant for getting visa in one year though there was a waiting period of 48-54 months at that time which can be considered as unfair trade practice under C.P. Act, 1986. It would be beneficial here to mention the provision for unfair trade practice as per C.P. Act, 1986 which read as under:
Section 2(1)(r) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 22 [(r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:--
(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,--
(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;
(iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods;
(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;
(v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have;
(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services;
(vii) gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof:
In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court and above provision of the C.P. Act, 1986 this Commission is of the view that there is a Page 9 of 13 R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015 deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Immigration Company and resultantly opponent Immigration Company held liable to reimburse the entire amount to the complainant.
16. Moreover we have also gone through the copy of 'Contract of Engagement' which is on record at page no. 40 to 47 wherein Section 3(v) it has been specifically mentioned as under:
(v) If for any reason whatsoever, the Client becomes disinterested in pursuing his/her application for permanent immigration or withdraws his/her case, then in such case the Company shall be entitled to full payment of fee.
Looking to the above clause of Contract of Engagement it is crystal clear that complainant is unquestionably entitled to recover the entire amount of visa fees from the opponent Immigration Company and therefore in the opinion of this Commission order for the payment of Rs. 50,000/- as a 'reasonable amount' awarded by ld. Dist. Commission is not just and proper.
17. Furthermore it is an averment of the complainant that by falling into delusion that opponent will complete all the procedure of immigration within a year, she has joined IELTS classes and bears the total expenses of Rs. 12,200/- [Rs. 7,200/- + Rs. 5,000/-] but ultimately as opponent failed to complete the necessary process, her IELTS examination expenses went in vein. However as discussed above the Score Band of IELTS examination only valid for 02 years from which it clearly transpires that if it is in the knowledge of the complainant that her immigration process took about 48- 54 months, she would not have joined the IELTS classes nor she appeared in the said examination earlier in the year 2007 and hence in the opinion of this Commission due to such unfair trade practice by way of such false assurances of opponent Immigration Company, complainant is also entitled Page 10 of 13 R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015 to recover the expenses she spent for IELTS examination from the opponent Immigration Company.
18. In the case on hand for the foregoing reasons it is crystal clear that opponent Immigration Company has miserably failed to complete his duties and adopted unfair trade practice by providing wrong information to the complainant. Moreover opponent Immigration Company has informed about such failure of completing immigration process later in the year 2013 and by that time complainant had to pass through some hardships and hence by committing such act, opponent Immigration Company has committed unfair trade practice and therefore we are of the view that complainant is unquestionably entitled to recover the entire amount of Rs. 68,632/- along with the expenses she bears for the IELTS examination amounting to Rs. 12,200/- from the opponent Immigration Company. Consequently in view of the foregoing reasons and according to the facts and circumstances of this case in the opinion of this Commission if the opponent would pay 6% interest on the total amount of Rs. 80,832/- [Rs. 68,632/- + Rs. 12,200/-] to the complainant then it would meet ends of justice.
19. In view of the above conspectus and materials on record we are of the considered opinion that order passed by the learned District Commission is not just and proper and therefore it is required to be modified and hence following final order is passed.
ORDER APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2015
1. The Appeal No. 810/2015 is partly allowed and order passed by learned District Commission, Ahmedabad (Add) in C.C. no. 409/2014 on date 21.04.2015 is modified.
Page 11 of 13
R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015
2. In the order of learned District Commission, Ahmedabad (Add) in C.C. no. 409/2014 on date 21.04.2015, Serial number 02 of the final order is modified as under:
"Opponent Immigration Company is hereby directed to pay Rs. 68,632/- [Rupees Sixty eight thousand six hundred and thirty two only] and her IELTS examination fees of Rs. 12,200/- [Rupees Twelve thousand and two hundred only] i.e. total amount of Rs.80,832/- [Rupees eighty thousand eight hundred and thirty two only] to the complainant with 6% interest from the date of 13.12.2006 till its realization."
3. The rest of the order passed by the learned District Commission Ahmedabad (Add) is hereby confirmed.
4. Opponent shall comply with this order within 60 days from the date of this order.
5. No order as to cost.
6. Registry is hereby instructed to send a copy of this order in PDF format by E-mail to learned District Commission (Add) for necessary action.
7. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this judgment and order to the respective parties.
ORDER APPEAL NO. 783/2015
1. The present Appeal no. 783/2015 is hereby dismissed.
2. The judgment and order passed by learned District Commission Ahmedabad (Add) in C.C. no. 409/2014 dated 21.04.2015 is hereby confirmed in view of the above modification in Appeal No. 810/2015.
3. The opponent is hereby ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the original complainant as cost of the Appeal and shall bear its own cost if any.
4. Opponent shall comply with this order within 60 days from the date of this order.
Page 12 of 13
R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015
5. Appellant is directed to apply to the Account Department of the State Commission with all details of Appeal No. 783/2015, Xerox copy of the receipt to withdraw the amount deposited in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
6. Registry is hereby instructed to send a copy of this order in PDF format by E-mail to learned District Commission Ahmedabad (Add) for taking necessary action.
7. Office is directed to place the copy of this judgment in both the Appeal No. 810/2015 and Appeal No. 783/2015.
8. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this judgment and order to the respective parties.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 8th June, 2022.
[Dr. J.G. Mecwan] [Mr. I.D. Patel]
Member Judicial Member
Page 13 of 13
R.I. DESAI A/783/2015 & A/810/2015