Satnam Singh v. WWICS Immigration Consultant

SCO 112, ICICI Bank, M.K. Hotel Road; B-Block, Ranjit Avenue; Amritsar-143001.

2. S.B.S.Sandhu Proprietor/Manager/ Principal Officer Having Office Address:-District Shopping Center, SCO 112, ICICI Bank, M.K. Hotel Road; B- Block, Ranjit Avenue; Amritsar-143001.

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Ms. Nidhi Verma, Member

Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Saini, Member

For Complainant Sh. Avik Mehra Advocate

For Opposite Parties Sh. Sunny Sehgal Advocate

PER:

Sh. Charanjit Singh President

1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 & 13 against the opposite party on the allegations that the opposite party no. 1 is a well renowned immigration consultancy services of Amritsar which enables/ helps aspirants wishing to go abroad with consultancy services and study/visa related services abroad and opposite party no.2 is its principal officer.Owing to the goodwill and reputation of opposite parties in the field of consultancy services, complainant availed immigration services as offered by opposite party No.1&2 at Amritsar for going/aspirant of going abroad and for this very reason complainant met agent of the opposite parties at their office at the addresses mentioned in the memo of parties above. The Opposite party in the year 2016

2

alongwith their agents advised complainant to apply for visa in Canada under the category of skilled labour and thereby also took all the relevant documents as required for the same from the complainant. Both the opposite parties owing to their unfair trade practices induced the complainant to take him to abroad and thereby took first payment of Rs.20,000.86/- vide receipt no. 1003161368 on dated 12.05.2016. Thereafter, opposite parties again took second instalment of Rs.1,86,100.29 paisa vide receipt no 100316388 of dated 17.05.2016 from the complainant. The receipt in this respect is Ex. C2.At, this juncture of time opposite parties wrongfully induced the complainant that he will definitely be in Canada by the end of December, 2016 and for that he should make remaining payment to the opposite parties as soon as possible and in pursuance to this demand, complainant issued a cheque no. '551529' for an amount of Rs. 3,22,100/-in favour of Centrum Direct Limited of dated 21.7.2016. The photocopy of cheque in question is Ex C3. This way opposite party no.1&2 alongwith their agents have wrongfully, owing to their unfair trade practices taken total sum of Rs.5,28,201.15paise by July, 2016 from the complainant by inducing him wrongfully and alluring him with dreams of settlement in abroad and thereby promising complainant to offer him skilled work labour visa in Canada. Thereafter opposite party no.1 and 2 alongwith their agents kept on lingering the matter of the complainant on one pretext or the other with the wrongful intentions in order to divest his hard earned money by saying that they have applied for his file and they are in the process of getting the approval. The opposite parties owing to their unfair trade practices kept on lying the complainant for more than two years and finally when the complainant went to the office of the opposite party in late 2018, they on point blank told complainant that they have not even put his file for processing uptilltoday. This is nothing but unfair trade practices and deficiency in services as provided by the opposite parties.The opposite parties wrongfully using the hard earned money of the complainant for more than 2 years returned sum of Rs.4,60,000/-

3

to the complainant just few months back and telling complainant that he cannot go to Canada.The complainant humbly requested the opposite parties to return his hard earned money Rs.68,201.15/- which they have withheld illegally owing to their unfair trade practices. The complainant also sent a legal notice of dated 18.11.2019 to the opposite parties in the respect but to no avail.

(a) The opposite parties maybe directed to refund sum of Rs. Rs.68,201.15/- withheld illegally by them with interest at the rate of 18% PA from the date of actual taken till its realisation.

(b) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of unfair trade practices and deficiency in services for about 3 years and causing him mental agony and trauma by not sending him to Canada and wrongfully deceiving him.

(c) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

The complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5.

3 Notice of this complaint issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version interalia pleadings that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the principle of Promissory Estoppel as the complainant vide consent letters dated 19.06.2018 for an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- & US$ 3200, copy of the said consent letters are attached herewith as Annexure R-1, R-2 respectively. Later on, the complainant filed a police complaint at Amritsar, and in which a settlement was arrived between the parties and the complainant compromised the matter and the complainant received the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- i.e. Rs. 1,26,000 /- & US$ 4700 equivalent to Rs. 3,34,000/- and also signed a consent letter, Receipt/Compromise, No Dues

4

dated 30.09.2019, copy of which are attached herewith as Annexure R-3, before the Police officials, Amritsar and accepted the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- vide two cheques bearing No. 113101 dated 20.04.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- and cheque No.116149 dated 30.09.2019 for an amount of Rs.3,34,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Chandigarh, the copy of the both the cheques are attached herewith as Annexure R-4 & R-5 respectively which have since already been encashed by the complainant. Thus, no cause of action survives to the complainant to file the present complaint before this Commission and the present compliant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present consumer complaint before this Commission. The complainant had made a promise vide consent letter, receipt/compromise, no dues dated 30.09.2019(Annexure R-3 Colly) signed by the complainant before the Police officials, Amritsar and accepted the amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- towards the full and final settlement of his claim of refund against the opposite parties. Thus, the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is fully applicable in the instant case and the complainant cannot refuse to abide by his promise made by way of consent letter, receipt/compromise, no dues against which his earlier complaint was filed/dismissed after receiving the of refund amount by him. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.The present case is liable to be dismissed as the opposite parties had neither been negligent nor deficient in its services. The complainant retained the services of the opposite parties by entering a contract of engagement dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure R-6), under Express Entry Employment Facilitation, Canada with respect to preparation and submission of documents to secure Job Offer. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- (excluding Service Tax of Rs.26.100/- which is non-refundable) vide receipts dated 12.05.2016 and 17.05.2016, the copy of the same is attached as Annexure R-7. The opposite parties immediately started working on the immigration case of the complainant and the complainant was guided thoroughly for preparation of his

5

job duties and documents. Thereafter, the opposite parties received only resume of the complainant and the opposite parties assessed the resume of the complainant and vide email dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure R-8) the discrepancies along with the requirement of pending documents were sent to the complainant. The complainant inspite of being properly guided/advised by the opposite parties to provide mandatory documents as per checklist had failed to provide his complete set of documents till now. Since, the complainant had committed breach of contract by not providing the complete set of documents within 30days as per clause 2(a)(g) of the contract dated 17.05.2016(Annexure R- 6), the opposite parties kept on following with the complainant for the documents by way of various telephonic reminders and emails. Despite being reminded vide dated 08.07.2016, 16.07.2016, 10.10.2016, 25.11.2016 and 19.12.2016 (Annexure R-9) and through telephonic conversations on various occasions, the complainant failed to provide any document till date due to which his immigration case could not be processed further. Later on, the complainant became disinterested and vide refund application dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure R-10) started asking for the refund. As per clause 2 (b)(g), clause 8(i),

(ii) and 9(a) of the contract dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure R-6) the complainant is not entitled to any refund, but as a goodwill gesture vide email dated 16.06.2018 (Annexure R-11) the opposite parties approved the refund of Rs. 1,26,000/- to which the complainant gave his consent vide consent letter dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure R-1) towards full and final satisfaction of his claim and the same amount was received by the complainant through cheques bearing No. 113101 dated 20.04.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,26,000/-drawn on Axis Bank, Chandigarh (Annexure R-4) which have since already been encashed by the complainant. Thus, no cause of action survives to the complainant to file the present complaint before this Commission and the present compliant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Similarly, the complainant also engaged the services of M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai which is a separate

6

and distinct legal entity and entered into a contract of engagement dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure R-12). The complainant had paid an amount of USD 4700 directly M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai (GSBC in short) to the vide receipt dated 21.07.2016 (Annexure R-13). Since, the complainant had committed Breach of Contract by not providing the complete set of documents within 30days per clause 2 (b)(g), clause 8(i), (ii) and 9(a) (b) of the contract dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure R-12) the complainant is not entitled to any refund, but as a goodwill gesture GSBC,Dubai vide email dated 16.06.2018 (Annexure R-

14) approved the refund of USD 3200 to which the complainant gave his consent vide consent letter dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure R-2) towards full and final satisfaction of his claim and later on filed Police complaint in which a settlement was arrived between the parties and the complainant compromised the matter for USD 4700 equivalent to Rs. 3,34,000/-,the same amount was received by the complainant through cheques bearing No.116149 dated 30.09.2019 for an amount of Rs. 3,34,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Chandigarh (Annexure R-5) which have since already been encashed by the complainant. Thus, no cause of action survives to the complainant to file the present complaint before this commission and the present compliant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Once the complainant had retained the services, the company started providing services from day one, even before the case was filed. Services such as:

a) Counseling and advising the client about the Job Offer and the Immigration procedure to be followed.

b) Providing and counseling the client about immigration package and the check list of documents. Explaining the client in detail about the documents and the forms that are necessary for filing Immigration Application.

7

c) Advising and guiding the client in preparation of documents and forms in proper format as per the requirement of Immigration Authorities etc. Documents such as Experience documents, Education documents etc.

Thus the opposite parties had duly been performing its part of the contract right from the time when the Complainant had retained the services and was duly advised and guided about necessary documents for preparing and filing the case and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties at any point of time and the present complaint needs dismissal.Out of the amount of Rs. 2,06,099/-an amount of Rs. 26,099/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant which is totally non-refundable as the same has gone into Government account as is clear from the Receipts dated 12.05.2016 and 17.05.2016 (Annexure R-7), wherein the details of service tax have been mentioned, thus this amount cannot be claimed from the opposite parties. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Amritsar does not have the Jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint because the Complainant has agreed in clause 14 of contract dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure R-6) that all the differences and disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the Arbitrator appointed by the Company or any other official approved by the company. Since this commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with this complaint, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Rupinder Singh Ex. OP1/A alongwith documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex. OP-14.

4 We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

8

5 The complainant admittedly availed immigration consultancy services of Opposite Party No.1 in the year 2016 under the Express Entry Employment Facilitation Programme, Canada and executed a contract of engagement dated 17.05.2016 (Ex. R-6). It is also not in dispute that the complainant paid certain amounts to Opposite Party No.1 as well as to its associate entity M/s Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai, and subsequently sought refund.

6 The complainant relied upon Aadhaar Card (Ex. C-1), receipts dated 12.05.2016 and 17.05.2016 (Ex. C-2), cheque dated 21.07.2016 (Ex. C-3), legal notice dated 18.11.2019 (Ex. C-4) with postal receipt (Ex. C-5) and his affidavit (Ex. CW1/A).

7 The opposite parties placed on record contract of engagement dated 17.05.2016 (Ex. R-6), receipts showing payment and service tax (Ex. R-7), emails seeking pending documents (Ex. R-8, R-9), refund application (Ex. R-10), approval emails (Ex. R-11, R-14), consent letters dated 19.06.2018 (Ex. R-1, R-2), compromise/receipt/no-dues dated 30.09.2019 (Ex. R-3), cheques evidencing refund (Ex. R-4, R-5), Dubai contract (Ex. R-12) and receipt (Ex. R-13) alongwith affidavit of Rupinder Singh (Ex. OP-1/A).

8 From the documents Ex. R-6 to R-9, it is evident that after execution of the contract, the opposite parties initiated the process, provided counseling, issued checklist, assessed the resume and repeatedly requested the complainant to furnish mandatory documents. The complainant failed to provide complete documents within the stipulated period, resulting in breach of contractual obligations on his part.

9 The record further reveals that despite non-entitlement under the contract clauses, the opposite parties, as a goodwill gesture, approved partial refund. The complainant voluntarily executed consent letters dated 19.06.2018 (Ex. R-1, R-2) and subsequently entered into a police settlement dated 30.09.2019 (Ex. R-3),

9

receiving a total amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- through cheques (Ex. R-4 and R-5), which were admittedly encashed. The said settlement was towards full and final satisfaction and contained a "no dues" declaration.

10 Having accepted the settlement amount without protest and having signed consent letters and no-dues receipt, the complainant is estopped from raising further claims. The doctrine of accord and satisfaction squarely applies. The National Commission has consistently held that once a consumer accepts settlement in full and final satisfaction, no further cause of action survives. Reference may be made to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills, (1999) CPJ 10 (NC) and Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, (2000) CPJ 1 (NC).

11 Mere failure of immigration outcome does not ipso facto constitute deficiency, particularly when the complainant himself failed to comply with contractual requirements. The National Commission in Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. v. State of UP, (2009) CPJ 18 (NC) and S.P Goel v. Collector Of Stamps, Delhi ., (1996) CPJ 11 (NC) has held that deficiency must be proved by cogent evidence and cannot be presumed.

12 The receipts (Ex. R-7) clearly show payment of service tax, which has already been deposited with the Government and is non-refundable. The complainant cannot claim refund of statutory taxes from the service provider, as held by the National Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority

v. Raje Ram, (2008) CPJ 5 (NC).

13 Though an arbitration clause exists in the contract (Clause 14, Ex. R-6), in view of settled law that existence of arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, this Commission has examined the matter on merits. However, on merits, no deficiency is made out.

10

14 In view of the admitted settlement, execution of consent letters, receipt of refund amount in full and final settlement, and absence of any cogent evidence of deficiency or unfair trade practice, the complaint is devoid of merit.

15 In view of above discussion, there is no merits in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

29.01.2026

(Charanjit Singh) President

(NidhiVerma) (V.P.S. Saini) Member Member

..................

CHARANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

..................

NIDHI VERMA

MEMBER

..................

V.P.S.SAINI

MEMBER

11