Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
1. This judgment will decide two Revision Petitions which are filed against the impugned orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 18 of 2010 and Appeal No. 39 of 2010 .The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and allowed the Appeal filed the Respondent for enhancement of compensation against order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ‘District Forum’).
2. Facts in brief as; the OPs Company Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd are service provider for immigration, and claimed themselves as experts in immigration to Canada. Accordingly, relying upon that representation, in July 2002, complainant Mr. Charanjit Singh approached the office of OP, with a request to forward his case for Canada Immigration. The complainant was working as CTO in Punjab and Sind Bank and was duly qualified for categories which could have applied for permanent residence in Canada, under Immigrating SKILLED WORKERS CATEGORY. The OPs, on 18.07.2002, got signed agreements from him at Hoshiarpur itself and as per their representation and the agreements, they were to prepare his case as per the categories which were entitled to file application for permanent immigration and to do correspondence with the Canadian High Commission (in short, 'the CHC'). He paid fees of Rs.65,000/- and was told by the OPs that his case was likely to be finalized within two-three years and that he should wait for his number and that the status shall be reported to them by the CHC. He waited for three years and in the year 2005, approached the OPs and inquired about his status. He was told that since there were a large number of applications for immigration from India, his case was likely to take three more years. He received a letter dated 05.05.2008 from CHC, in which it was stated that the OPs were not authorized to represent his case before it. However, he was permitted to represent his case himself. When he approached the OPs, they did not pay any heed and had not given any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, he received a letter from the CHC, stating that he was not having sufficient experience in the categories in which the application had been made. He came to know that, OP has filed his application to CHC under wrong category. Hence, due to the deficiency in service by the OP; the complainant was made to wait for six long years, due to which he lost his chance and future prospects. Hence, complainant filed a complaint before District Forum for compensation to the tune of Rs.10, 00,000/-.
3. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the Complainant/Respondent and directed the OP to refund Rs.65,000/- along with interest @ 10% and compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. On January, 2010, the Petitioner and Respondent filed the Appeals before State Commission, Punjab. On 03.09.2013, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed whereas the Appeal filed by the Respondent for enhancement of compensation was allowed and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded as against a compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum.
4. Against the impugned order of State Commission, this revision petition was filed.
5. We have heard the counsels of both the parties. The counsel for the OP/Petitioner argued that,the complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties as M/s GSBC to whom a payment of Rs.35,000/- was made, was not arrayed as the party before the District Forum. Therefore, the OP/Petitioner company has not received any amount , hence not liable to refund the said amount. He further argued that, the District Forum, Hoshiarpur has no jurisdiction, there is no office of the company in Hoshiarpur. The Contract of Engagement between the Complainant and the OP was signed at Chandigarh. However, the Complainant did not pay the balance amount of US $ 1400 to M/s GSBC and started dealing directly with the Canadian High Commission, in violation of the terms and condition of the Contract of Engagement, therefore, the OP should not be blamed for any adverse effect .
6. We have perused the evidence on record, the agreement dated 18.07.2002 on file of this case. As per the agreement, the OPs were to assist the Complainant, in submission of application for the Permanent Residence in Canada, by assessment of education (Academic and Professional) professional skills/training and experience and were to advise him about the Canadian Immigration Rules. As per the agreement, the OPs were duty bound, while submitting the application to CHC, to satisfy them that the Complainant was having the requisite experience, under the category the application was being filed. But, the OP filed an application, under category, which the complainant was not having the requisite
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
experience, in respect of that category. Hence, the application was refused on the ground that he was not meeting the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. This conduct of OPs is a deficiency in service. OPs cannot grab the money of the complainant, without performing any work. Due to OPs deficiency; the complainant was kept waiting for six long years, wasted a crucial time and lost his chance of future prospects. 7. We are of considered view that, the revision petitions have no merits, hence dismissed.