Case nº Revision Petition Nos. 3130 and 3131 of 2009 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 21, 2014 (case 1. Canadian 4 UR Immigration (P) Ltd., 2. Ravinder Singh Dhaliwal Vs 1. Ravinder Singh Dhaliwal, 2. Canadian 4 UR Immigration (P) Ltd.)

Judge:For Appellant: Deepak Aggarwal Advocate and Tarlochan Singh Sekhon, MD - Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Party-in-Person
President:D.K. Jain, J. (President) and Rekha Gupta, Member
Defense:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 21(b), 27
Resolution Date:November 21, 2014
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

Rekha Gupta, Member, (Circuit Bench At UT Chandigarh)

  1. Revision petition nos. 3130 of 2009 and 3131 of 2009 have been filed against the judgment dated 26.05.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh ("the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 2276 of 2008. As both these revision petitions arise out of a common order of the UT State Commission, we propose to pass a common order.

  2. The facts of the case are taken from the lead file, i.e., R P No. 3130 of 2009. The facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the petitioner/opposite party had advertised in newspaper inviting application for immigration to Canada mentioning the different trades and their eligibility criteria. The respondent had to opt for a trade and the petitioner was to confirm the eligibility conditions. Accordingly, the respondent opted for the technical trade mentioned at S No. 5 of the format, i.e., Carpenter and Cabinet Maker and also produced the certificates in original as demanded to authenticate his eligibility.

  3. After scrutinising all the documents the petitioner entered into a service agreement with the respondent on 10.10.2006 and received a consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/- as first stage payment for processing the case of the respondent for permanent residency in Canada under Head BCPNP. The remaining payment was to be made at the time of nomination and on receipt of immigration Visa as per schedule as agreed. They further promised to clear the process within a period of 6 - 8 months as stated in the advertisement.

  4. To the utter shock of the respondent, a letter followed by the reminder was received from the Overseas Immigration from Canada, the associate of the petitioner in Canada, that the case of the respondent was not processed as the immigration services at Chandigarh had not taken any action despite reminders for payment and information. Thus, the fanciful promises as stated initially and the contents of letter dated 07.06.2007 appeared to be false and had been given with the intention to cover up the lapses as the time schedule given by the petitioner had expired.

  5. The respondent had been making other preparations simultaneously, such as, getting published his name and the names of other family members for adding the surnames as required for the purpose of immigration for which the respondent spent in thousands and was also not accepting any new work-jobs of carpentry keeping in view the time span involved for such jobs and hence suffered huge losses. The respondent had taken a loan initially from his brother and thereafter again from the Bank with interest for which he deserves to be compensated.

  6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent prayed for the following reliefs:

    (i) Directing the petitioner to refund Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 12% till realisation;

    (ii) To pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony faced by the respondent and his family at the hands of the petitioner for more than one and a half years.

    (iii) To pay Rs. 15,000/- for travelling and miscellaneous charges.

    (iv) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.

    (v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem reasonable in the set circumstances.

  7. The petitioner/opposite party in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, UT Chandigarh ('the District Forum') admitted that the respondent had entered into service agreement with the petitioner on 18.10.2006 and they had received consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/- but denied that the petitioner had promised to clear out the process within a period of 6-8 months. Usually application process time of the Canadian High Commission was about 18-24 months and this was in fact brought to the knowledge of the respondent vide agreement dated 18.10.2006 and agreed between the respondent and the petitioner and specifically mentioned the condition No. 11 of the Agreement.

  8. The petitioner, earlier, had a contract with Overseas Immigration from Canada but due to the fact that the said Overseas Immigrant Co., had started correspondence directly with the clients of the petitioner to mislead them and also against the terms and conditions as agreed upon between Overseas Immigration Co., and the petitioner in the best of interest of the clients of the petitioner, all the dealings with the said Overseas Immigration Co., were immediately withdrawn and even the customers of the petitioner were suitably advised regarding the same including the present respondent...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL