State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Worldwide Immigration Consultancy ... vs Suresh Kumar on 30 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.869 of 2004
Date of institution: 28.07.2004
Date of decision : 30.07.2010
Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, SCO No.112, Near
ICICI Bank, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its
Branch Manager.
...Appellants
Versus
Suresh Kumar son of Darshan Kumar, House No.21, Guru Nanak Nagar,
Batala, District Gurdaspur.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
1.6.2004 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Raman Walia, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh.Pankaj Maini, Advocate.
MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 1.6.2004 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum"), wherein the complaint of the respondent was allowed.
2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal as follows:-
3. The respondent had hired the services of the appellants for obtaining a permanent visa for Canada. As per the demand of the appellants, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide bank draft dated 3.8.2000 and another sum of Rs. 15000/- vide bank draft dated 5.9.2000. In addition to this the respondent also made payment of US $ 1600/- vide demand draft dated 16.10.2000.
First Appeal No.869 of 2004 2
4. It was further pleaded that the appellants assured the respondent that he would receive an interview letter for immigration to Canada within 18-24 months. However, even after the lapse of 36 months, the respondent did not receive any such letter from the appellants. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed a complaint in the District Forum, Amritsar seeking refund of the amount of Rs.45000/- and U.S. $ 1600/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of payment till realization. Compensation and cost were also prayed.
5. The appellants filed written reply. It was admitted that amounts of Rs.45,000/- and U.S. $ 1600 were received from the respondent on account of visa processing fees. The case of respondent was filed in 2001. It was denied if any assurance was given to the respondent with regard to time involved in processing of his case. It was further pleaded that a general information based on the information received from the Canadian High Commission was given to the respondent/other clients for updating their knowledge. In the letter Ex.R4 addressed to the respondent, the Canadian High Commission had indicated that the average processing time may be longer or shorter depending upon the number of applicants waiting to be processd. Due to unprecedented incidents like U.S. Bomb blast, India Pakistan War apprehension and new immigration rules announced by the Canadian Government, the total processing time had increased to 36-42 months and this was applicable to all the prospective immigrants through out the world. It was denied that if the respondent was ever misled or misinformed with regard to the total processing time.
6. It was further pleaded that as per the Contract of Engagement entered into between both the parties, the fee paid by the respondent was non-refundable and accordingly the respondent was not entitled to seek the refund of the same. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the appellants prayed for dismissal of the complaint. First Appeal No.869 of 2004 3
7. Parties adduced evidence in support of their versions.
8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and going through the documents on record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 1.6.2004 allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellants to refund Rs.45,000/- and another amount in Rupees equivalent to U.S. $ 1600/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt till date of refund. The appellants were further directed to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the respondent.
9. Hence the appeal by the appellants.
10. The Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the impugned order dated 1.6.2004 passed by the learned District Forum be set aside and the appeal be accepted.
11. The Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the appeal and appeal be dismissed.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent had hired the services of the appellants for filing and processing his application for permanent visa for Canada. This is proved from the Contract of Engagement entered into between the appellants and the respondent (Annexure A1). It is also not disputed that the appellants received a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent. The respondent has proved the receipt dated 7.8.2000(Ex.C5) by which the appellants have admitted having received this amount from the respondent. The respondent has also proved on record a copy of bank draft dated 5.9.2000 (Ex.C3) for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and a copy of demand draft dated 16.10.2000 for an amount of US $ 1600 (Ex.C2).
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the appellants had failed to fulfil the assurance with regard to arranging his interview within a period of 18 to 24 months. In this context, reference was made to the letter of the appellants dated 28.11.2000 which was shown to First Appeal No.869 of 2004 4 us at the time of arguments and directed to be placed on record. As per this letter, the respondent was given file No.7478 and it was specified that the interview of the respondent with immigration authorities was likely to be scheduled in 18-24 months.
15. The learned counsel for the appellants admitted that the respondent could not be sent abroad within the period specified in the letter. It was alleged that the information was given to the respondent / other clients on the basis of the information received by them from the Canadian High Commission. It was further alleged that due to 9/11 incident in USA, the immigration rules had changed and the process time had increased due to which the application of the respondent was delayed. The whole process of immigration was governed by the Canadian Authorities and was not under the control of the appellants.
16. We find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. It appears as if the appellants are utilising these factors as an excuse to save their skin.
17. It was also submitted that the respondent stated having direct correspondence with the Canadian Authorities, therefore, the appellants were discharged from their liability.
18. This submission has been considered. It has no merit. If the Canadian authorities had demanded some information from the respondent, he was bound to supply the same. The responsibility of the appellants did not cease to exist.
19. The appellants cannot be permitted to commit fraud with their clients by making false promises in an attempt to justify the excessive service charges they demand.
20. In the instant case, the appellants have themselves admitted that the case of the respondent could not be processed within stipulated period. It is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that the appellants failed to render the services as promised to the respondent. This act on the part of First Appeal No.869 of 2004 5 the appellants thus amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
21. Further there is no justification for not refunding the fees to the respondent. At the most the appellants could be entitled only for a proportionate retention of the amount for the services rendered, if any. However, in the instant case, the appellants have taken a bad stance and refused to refund any amount to the respondent, which compelled him to approach the forum.
22. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum and accordingly this appeal is dismissed with costs to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
23. The appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of appeal on 28.7.2004. This amount, along with interest, if any, be remitted to respondent by way of crossed cheque / bank draft. Remaining amount be paid by the appellants to the respondent within a month after receipt of copy of this order.
24. The arguments in this case were heard on 21.7.2010 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Mrs.Amarpeet Sharma) Member July 30, 2010.
Davinder