National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Aditya Kumar vs M/S Worldwide Immigration Consultancy ... on 23 January, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3830 OF 2012 (From the order dated 05.07.2012 in First Appeal No. 90/2012 of U.T. Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Mr. Aditya Kumar r/o Mohalla Kotla, Near P.W.D. Guest House, Town Gangoh, District Saharanpur (U.P.) ... Petitioner Versus M/s. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., (WWICS Ltd.) Head Office at A-12, Industrial Area, Phase 6, Mohali. Respondent
BEFORE HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Sunil Goyal, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd JANUARY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 05.07.2012, passed by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 90/2012, M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. versus Aditya Kumar, vide which, while accepting appeal, the order dated 12.12.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, allowing the consumer complaint, was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant, with an intention to settle permanently in Canada as a skilled worker, approached the respondent/OP for availing himself of their services, for helping him in the immigration process. He deposited a sum of `25000/- with the OP for professional services and later on, paid 1400 canadian dollars and a sum of `19,000/-. An agreement dated 13.06.2004 was also signed between the parties, detailing the duties of the OP company and those of the client. It has been stated in the complaint that on demand by the OP, the complainant submitted all requisite documents to them for assessing his case for immigration. The OP forwarded the case of the complainant to the Canadian High Commission at New Delhi vide their letter dated 27.08.2004, enclosing therewith various documents required. This letter was sent under the signatures of Mr. Parvinder Sandhu, Senior Director, WWICS Limited, Chandigarh.
Simultaneously, the OP wrote to the complainant that other documents like valid passports for applicant and his family and police clearance certificates of applicant and his spouse were required within 30 days for sending the same to the Canadian High Commission. The complainant was also advised to get some other documents ready and to make arrangements for certain events as detailed in the said letter dated 27.08.2004. It was also stated in this letter that he should get International English Language Tests Score (IELTS) certified with minimum 7 grades in each para to prove his English proficiency within 90 days of the issue of the letter. The Canadian High Commission sent a letter on 08.10.2004, acknowledging the receipt of the application for permanent residence in Canada. Later on, the Canadian High Commission sent a letter dated 13.10.2008, asking for some more documents. It is the case of the OP that the said letter was forwarded to the complainant by registered post on 13.10.2008 itself. However, his application for immigration was rejected on 02.06.2009 by the High Commission.
The WWICS informed the complainant by registered post on 09.07.2009, regarding rejection of the application for non-submission of documents as asked for by the High Commission. The complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum on 29.09.2010, alleging deficiency in service, deceptive and restrictive trade practice etc. against the OPs and demanded damages and compensation to the tune of `5 lakh in addition to a refund of the sum of `25,000/-, 1400 canadian dollars and `19,000/- deposited by him alongwith interest @24% p.a. The District Forum vide their order passed on 12.12.2011, found the OP company deficient in service in providing proper service to the complainant and directed them to refund a sum of `25,000/-, 1400 canadian dollars and a further sum of `50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, apart from `10,000/- as litigation cost. An appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was however, accepted and the order of the District Forum was set aside. The present revision petition has been made against this order of the State Commission.
3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the grounds of revision petition and the contents of the consumer complaint, saying that the petitioner made payment to the OPs as detailed above and also entered into two agreements with them, regarding availing their services for helping him in getting immigration to Canada.
In the agreement dated 13.06.2004 between the complainant and WWICS, the duties of the Company as well as client have been clearly laid down. The second agreement is a contract of engagement entered between the complainant and Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai, UAE, in which the details of services, charges to be paid and duties of the client have been listed.
It is stated that Mr. Parvinder Sandhu is a member of Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, having registration/Membership No. M-041642. The learned counsel mentioned that there were basically three issues involved in the matter, namely:-
(i) Non-supply of documents to the OPs by complainant;
(ii) Not impleading Global Strategic Business Consultancy as a party; and
(iii) Non-refund of amount of `19,000/- as this amount had been paid to the Canadian High Commission.
4. Regarding the issue of non-submission of documents, the learned counsel stated that the proof of proficiency in English Language had already been furnished to the OP, and the same had been sent by them to the Canadian High Commission as Annexure 4 with the letter dated 27.08.2004. It has been stated in their agreement dated 13.06.2004 with the WWICS, that the candidate should have high proficiency in English and he should have cleared IELTS or any other tests as laid down by the Immigration Authorities. It was, therefore, not necessary that complainant should have cleared IELTS only.
Further, the OPs have clearly stated in the letter dated 27.08.2004 sent to the Canadian High Commission that the complainant had 67 units of assessment, which are the minimum points required to qualify for immigration. This includes 16 points for knowledge of English language as well. The learned counsel has argued that if the case of the complainant was not complete or any documents were required to be taken from him, the OP could have pointed out the same to him, before sending the case to the High Commission. It was clear, therefore, that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Regarding the letter dated 27.08.2004, stated to have been sent by the OP to the complainant, the learned counsel stated that the said letter was never received by the complainant.
Further, the E-mail message received on 13.10.2008 from the High Commission, asking for more documents and information, stated to have been sent by the OP to the complainant was never received by him, as it was not sent on correct address. The learned counsel stated that the permanent mailing address of the complainant is that of District Saharanpur, U.P. The current mailing address at the time of filling the application form at WWICS on 28.05.2004 was of Manimajra, Chandigarh, but it is not the address given in the agreement. It was, therefore, the duty of the OP to send the letter received from the High Commission after a gap of 4 years to the permanent address, but it was not done.
5. Referring to the second issue about the non-impleading of Global Strategic Business Consultancy as a party, the learned counsel stated that these two Companies belonged to the same person and it was clear from record that Mr. Parvinder Sandhu was the main person, handling the affairs of both the companies. There was therefore no need to make Global Strategic Business Consultancy as a party.
6. Regarding the issue of non-refund of `19,000/- stated to have been paid to the Canadian High Commission, learned counsel stated that the said amount should also be reimbursed to the complainant.
7. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the order passed by the State Commission, saying that, right from the very beginning and as per the agreement, the complainant had been asked to submit the record/result of IELTS, but he never provided them the IELTS score. It had been stated in clause 2(J) of the agreement between the complainant and OP that high proficiency in English Language was required. It has also been stated in the letter dated 13.10.2008 from the High Commission that IELTS language test should be taken to prove proficiency in English language. The learned counsel stated that the respondents had not indulged in any deficiency in service and that his case was rejected due to non-submission of documents by him.
8. Referring to the non-impleadment of Global Strategic Business Consultancy, the learned counsel stated that both the Companies were separate legal entities. One single person could be a Director of more than one Company, but that does not mean that the second Company should not be impleaded as a party.
9. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
10. As per the record, the agreements were signed by the petitioner with M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. (WWICS Ltd.) and Global Strategic Business Consultancy on the same date, i.e., 13.06.2004. It is borne out from record that Mr. Parvinder Sandhu, stated to be a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC), having registration/membership number M-041642, is actively handling both these Companies, and it is under his signatures that the case for grant of the required visa was sent to the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi on 27.08.2004. The clients address for delivery has been mentioned as, Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., SCO 2415-16, Sector 22 C, Chandigarh 160022, India. The duties of the Company as well as the duties of the client have been mentioned in the said agreement. In nutshell, these Companies are providing services for helping the prospective clients to obtain visa from the Canadian High Commission and for that purpose, they are charging the requisite fees. It has been mentioned in the contract that the Company shall be responsible for the preparation of the case for immigration, assist in the completion of all required documents and supporting evidence, submission of case, handling all visa correspondence and monitoring the case to ensure timely issuance of permanent visa.
11. In the present case, the material on record shows that the WWICS sent the case for the grant of permanent visa to the petitioner on 27.08.2004. It has been stated in this letter dated 27.08.2004 that the proof of English language proficiency had been attached with this application. Only the following documents are stated to have been not included with the application:-
(i) Photocopy of passport of all applicants.
(ii) Police Clearance Certificate of PA and spouse,
(iii) Proof of funds.
12. Regarding the knowledge of English, it has been stated in the said letter that, he has studied in English medium throughout schools and college. He has done degree of Bachelor of Arts with English as medium of Instruction.
At his workplace, verbal and written communication is done in English Language. Therefore, his proficiency in English language is fluent.
Self-certification in English language and relevant certificates from colleges & current employer are attached with Annexure-4 as per your CIC website specifications (www.cic.gc.ca). Mr. Aditya Kumar is appearing for IELTS test and result would be forwarded at a later date.
13. In this very letter, it has been categorically stated that the summary of total units of assessment in his case says that he has 67 points to his credit, based on his education, experience, age and knowledge of English language. The minimum points required to qualify are also 67.
14. It has further been brought out from record that on the same date, i.e., 27.08.2004, when the case was sent to the Canadian High Commission, the WWICS wrote a letter to the petitioner Aditya Kumar, asking for documents, copies of passport and police clearance certificate, within a period of 30 days. It has also been stated that he must get IELTS score certified with minimum 7 grades in each para. According to the petitioner, he never received the said letter. However, even if the version of the OP is believed that they sent the said letter to the petitioner asking for more documents, it is not understood as to why they forwarded the case for immigration visa to the Canadian High Commission, if the documents were not complete. It was the duty of the WWICS to ensure that all documentation was completed before sending the case to the Canadian High Commission.
15. There is copy of another letter dated 8.10.04 placed on file, although it seems to be an incomplete letter by which the Canadian High Commission is stated to have informed the applicant that they had received his application and created a file number. The petitioner, however, says that he never received this letter.
Later on, after a period of good 4 years, there is an e-mail letter dated 13.10.2008, received by the WWICS from the Canadian High Commission, saying that some more documents were required and advice has been given to take the IELTS language test. The OP says that the said letter was sent to the petitioner at his Chandigarh address, whereas the petitioner says he is ignorant about this letter. He used to reside at his permanent address in District Shahranpur and the same address was quoted in the agreement. Thereafter, vide another letter dated 2.06.2009, addressed to the petitioner c/o WWICS, the Canadian High Commission rejected his visa application. The said letter was sent by M/s WWICS to the petitioner by registered post at his Chandigarh address.
16. From the above facts on record, it is not clear as to what steps were being taken by the OP, during all these years to have correspondence with the Canadian High Commission or to monitor his case from time to time, or to advise the client, regarding the progress of the case. It is very clear that after 27.08.2004, the OP have not taken any steps to monitor the fate of the visa application. Even after the receipt of letter dated 13.10.2008, they do not seem to have taken any effective steps to ensure that the requisite information was supplied to the Canadian High Commission. The only step taken by the OP seems to be the issuance of letter dated 27.08.2004 to the Canadian High Commission and simultaneously, a letter to the client seeking more documents. It is quite obvious that this is a case of clear-cut deficiency in service. When the OP was acting on behalf of the client after charging the necessary fees, it was required to play a pro-active role by taking up the matter with the High Commission for the grant of visa. It is obvious that the OP failed to perform that role and hence, the District Forum has rightly held it to be guilty of deficiency in service.
In so far as the payment of `19,000/- by the petitioner to the OPs for sending the same to the Canadian High Commission as visa processing fee is concerned, the same has not been allowed by the District Forum in their order dated 12.12.2011. The petitioner did not file any appeal challenging this part of the order by which the sum of `19,000/- was not allowed to be refunded.
There is no ground, therefore, to allow refund of this amount in the present revision petition.
17. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, this revision petition is ordered to be allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the refund of the amount of the compensation as ordered by the District Forum vide their order dated 12.12.2011. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER RS/