SIR,
WE HAVE MADE A COMPLAINT IN DISTRICT FORUM AGAINST IMMIGRATION FIRM ( FOR GETTING JOB OFFER OF CANADA) OF CHANDIGARH FOR REFUND OF 1.25 LACS BECAUSE THE FIRM HAD RETURNED RS 3.75 LACS FROM RS 5 LACS PAID FOR THE FEES.THE FIRM HAD TAKEN CONSENT LETTER FROM US AND THE DISTRICT FORUM HAD DISMISSED OUR COMPLAINT AS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND WE FILE FA IN STATE COMMISSION WHICH HAD GIVEN THE VERDICT IN OUR FAVOUR AND ORDER TI REFUND 1.25 LACS WITH INTEREST OF 9% P.A. ALONG WITH COMPENSATION OF 2 LACS BECAUSE THERE WAS A CLAUSE OF REFUND OF 75% IN THE AGREEMENT AND FIRM HAD PROVIDED US FAKE JOB OFFER WHICH FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY CANADIAN GOVT AND ADMITTED BY FIRM.
THIS ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BY FIRM IN NATIONAL COMMISSION AND THE NC ON 16/04/2015 (ON THE DATE OF ADMISSION HEARING) HAD ACCEPTED THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF STATE COMMISION WITHOUT GIVING US THE CHANCE TO ARGUE THE CASE AND ON OUR REQUESTING THE BENCH FOR GIVING US THE CHANCE TO ARGUE THEY HAD THREATEN US THAT COST WILL BE IMPOSED IF YOU AGAIN MAKE THE REQUEST TO ARGUE . WE ARE APPEARING IN PERSON BUT THE BENCH HAS SCOLDED US FOR NOT ENGAGING COUNSEL AS IT IS THE DUTY IF FORA TO RESPECT THE CONSUMERS WHO ARE APPEARING IN PERSON AS PER ACT.. MOREOVER THE PERSON WHO HAD SIGHNED ON BEHALF OF FIRM AND GIVEN THE AFFIDAVITS IS JUNIOR MOST EMPLOYEE OF FIRM AND FILED NO RESOLUTION OF FIRM THAT HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO FILE THE CASE AS THE FIRM IS LIMITED CONCERN. ALSO THERE WERE 2 DIFFERENT FIRMS AGAINST WHICH WE HAD MADE THE COMPLAINT AND HE HAD MENTIONED THAT HE WAS EMPLOYEE OF FIRM NO 1 SO FIRM NO 2 HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF STATE COMM AND THAT ATTAINED FINALITY BUT THIS PLEA WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED BY THE NC BENCH. PL SUGGEST ME THE REMEDY .
WITH REGARDS
AMARJIT SINGH MONGA
PATIALA
9814424700
