Placement assistance not given - compensation
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
I joined in a course offered by a reputed organisation. I have paid Rs.2 lakhs as fees. They offered placement assistance on completion of the course. But, they have not offered me the placement assistance.
I filed a case the consumer court. I have to file the written arguments.
Can the learned experts help me in giving any case law, in support of compensation payable to me?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 December 2011
you must rely on organisation brochure wherein it was mentioned that placement would be offered on completion of course .
in addtion if nay pamphlets etc have been issued by said organisation mentioning about placement rely upon the same .
you have a good case
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 December 2011
Mr.B.John Richard, S/o.B.R.Smiles,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Pvt.Employee ,
R/o.H.No.5-245/6, Plot No.25, Near Steven School,
Syndicate Bank Colony, Old Bowenpally,
Secunderbad-11. …Complainant
And
1. M/s.Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.,
(WWICS Ltd.),
Rep.by its C M D Mr.Lt.Col. BSSandhu (Retd.)
Having its Head Office:SCO 2415-16, Sector 22-C,
Chandigarh, India-1060022.
2. M/s.Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd.,
(WWICS Ltd.), Hyderabad Branch situated at
III Floor, Laxmi Plaza, Beside Shenoy Nursing Home,
East Marredpally,
Secunderabad-26. ... Opposite Parties
O R D E R
1. This is a complainant filed under section 12 of C.P. act 1986, seeking directions against opposite parties for refund of Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/-for the mental and physical agony undergone and for costs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the opposite party No.1 herein is Global Resettlement Solutions Consultancy Company operating along with global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai-UAE providing Immigration Services, Placement Services Resettlement Services & Settlement Services in different parts of the world having Associate offices around the world and the opposite party No.2 herein is the Hyderabad branch of the 1st Opposite party herein.
It is further pleaded that apart from the routine resettlement solutions they are engaged in providing Personal Services for Clients of the company, in providing the best services of immigration to seek permanent residency right from the start until they completely settle in the country of their choice. They also take care of airport pickup, provide subsidized rooms help in opening a Bank Account, Credit Card, Driving License, Government Card, finding education institutes for children, getting insurance and many more such services.
3. It is further pleaded that Opposite party No.1 has categorized the services to be provided as Gold and Bronze. Bronze package would include only pre-landing services, whereas, Gold package would not only include pre-landing but would include post-landing services also. It is stated that the complainant herein had taken the services under the Gold category by making spot payment but from the day one onwards the services were not at all satisfactory.
The complainant has been regular making all the payments from time to time, even when the representatives of the opposite party No.1 were at fault in regard to the information of the services to be provided to the complainant from time to time. He reminded about payment mode to the representatives of opposite party No.2 (WWICS, Hyderabad) but opposite parties have failed to provide the services. Due to the deficiency of service from the representatives of opposite parties, the complainant had to make the delayed payment for which, the opposite party No.1 had collected the late fee charges against the assurances of opposite party No.2. It amounts to unfair trade practice from the opposite parties.
5. It is submitted that when the complainant herein analyzed the services and transactions, the said analysis revealed the following acts of omissions and commissions as under:-
(i) The opposite parties failed to provide the right and correct information of immigration laws and procedure in applying for, the time to be consumed for the procedural aspects. without informing all the information, have informed the wrong and incorrect information and kept the complainant in dark without providing any information.
(ii) The opposite parties were adding various charges under deceptive and innocuous prefixes.
The contractual latitude permitting the opposite parties herein to levy all and sundry charges as aforesaid in addition to the holding up of the amounts paid by the complainant has to be viewed in the light of the aforesaid illegality and unfair trade practices by opposite parties. The acts of omissions and commissions attributed to the opposite parties constitute gross dereliction of DEFFICIENCY IN SERVICE and also RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICE & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE as defined under section. 2 (g) Sec.2(nnn) and Section.2® of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. The opposite parties in their written version submitted that at the time of hiring the services of the opposite parties the complainant had entered into a contract of engagement dated 17-04-2007 wherein he had agreed that any dispute arising between the parties shall be settled through Arbitration by appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by the company, whose award shall be final and binding on both the parties. Since the jurisdiction of this Forum is specifically barred in view of Clause 16 of the contract of engagement, this Hon’ble Forum should refer the matter to the Arbitration and dismiss the complaint.
The complainant had entered into a contract of engagement dated 17-04-2007 wherein specifically agreed that the legal jurisdiction shall only be of Chandigarh Courts. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.30,000/-to the answering respondents at Chandigarh, receipt dated 25-04-2007 regarding said payment was issued from Chandigarh and the Head office of respondents is situate at Chandigarh. Therefore, cause of action to claim refund, if any, has arisen at Chandigarh as per Section 20 CPC. Since the complainant has foregone his right and has submitted himself by way of signing a contract to the Jurisdiction of Chandigarh Courts only the jurisdiction at all other places is excluded”.
The provision of Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 is virtually identical with Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, Section 11 of the Act permits the restrictions of territorial jurisdiction to one out of two or more District Forums for the trial of a consumer dispute by way of an express agreement between the parties. In the instant case the complainant and respondents/opposite party by way of contract dated 17-04-2007 as mentioned above have specifically agreed that the legal Jurisdiction shall only be of Chandigarh Courts only. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.
Clause 17 of the contract specifies that if the client shows disinterest or does not co-operate in satisfying the purpose of the contract the contract shall be deemed to be concluded and in such a case the client shall not be entitled to any refund.
As per Clause 3 of the contract dated 17-04-2007 the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- within 30 days from the date of signing of the contract. However the complainant failed to make the payment within 30 days i.e., till 16-05-2007 and made the payment on 11-06-2007 due to which, interest was charged from the complainant as per Clause 4 of the contract. It is denied that the answering respondent had ever indulged in unfair trade practices. All the payments were to be made by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the contract.
The complainant was duly informed by the answering respondents vide letter dated 15-10-2007 regarding the receipt of the Canadian High Commission file number. The complainant has been time and again informed through e-mails regarding the progress of his case. However he vide letter dated 19-12-2007 decided to withdraw his application due to personal and professional reasons against the terms and conditions of the contract. The complainant vide e-mail dated 27-12-2007 was advised not to abort his case and to allow the opposite party to proceed and make the case of the complainant a success by getting him permanent residency.
There was no reply from the complainant. In fact, after the receipt of withdrawal application of the complainant dated 19-12-2007 the Canadian High Commission vide letter date 27-08-2008 had again asked for confirmation as to whether the complainant was still interested in immigrating to Canada or not. However again no response was received from the complainant within the prescribed time by the Canadian High Commission and as such the Canadian High Commission has retained the application of the complainant for processing. The complainant is trying to take advantage of his own wrongs. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and it is the complainant who himself is to be blamed.
7. The Complainant filed evidence affidavit and also written arguments reiterating his stand. He relied on Exs.A1 to A10. On the other hand opposite parties neither filed the evidence affidavit nor the written arguments. They also did not rely on any documentary evidence.
8. Points for Consideration are:-
i. Whether this Forum has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain this case ?
ii. Whether this case is to be referred to the arbitrator as contended by opposite parties ?
iii. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? and if so, whether the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount paid by him to opposite parties ?
iv. Whether this case is bad for non joinder of necessary party ?
v. Whether the complaint is entitled for any compensation? if so, to what amount ?
9. Point No.I:- The opposite parties in their counter raised a plea that both parties agreed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts at Chandigarh, and as such this forum has no territorial jurisdiction. We can not appreciate the above contention for the reason that no such agreement is filed, where both parties agreed to invoke the Jurisdiction of the Courts at Chandigarh.
Even, otherwise, there cannot be an agreement against the statutes or law. As per section-11 of the C.P. Act, the complaint can be institute in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite party or each of the opposite parties reside or carry on business. In the instant case, opposite party No.2, admittedly, has been doing business at Secunderabad within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. So, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try the present dispute.
10. Point No.II:- According to the opposite parties, as pleaded in their counter, there was an agreement between the parties to refer the dispute to the arbitrator appointed by opposite party No.1, but no such agreement is filed by the opposite parties. So, the question of referring the present complaint to the arbitrator does not arise.
11. Point No.III:- The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties having undertaken to provide personal services of immigration and even after accepting considerable amount from him, failed to provide the necessary service. According to him, the opposite parties could not provide professional services though received money from him. It is also stated that the opposite parties did not provide him the correct information regarding immigration laws etc., but collected charges under deceptive heads. The complainant filed his elaborate evidence affidavit and also produced the receipts, the notice issued, the acknowledgements and other relevant documents. He also filed his written arguments covering all the aspects.
Curiously enough, the opposite parties neither filed the evidence affidavit nor the written arguments, which are mandatory. In other words, the opposite parties could not adduce any evidence to rebut the stand taken by the complainant. Though they referred so many annexures in the counter, they have not filed any annexures or agreements till today. It means to say that the opposite parties have no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant.
12. The opposite parties in the counter pleaded that if the applicant withdraws his application, the company would still be entitled to get full fees. It is also pleaded that the fee paid to them was non refundable. They also referred that both the parties entered into a contract of engagement on 17-04-2007, but for the reasons best known to them they failed to produce such an agreement.
Thus except filing the counter, the opposite parties could do nothing to challenge the case of the complainant as pleaded in the complaint or his evidence affidavit or his written arguments. However, they admitted the receipt of the fees from the complaint.
13. The payments made by the complainant or not denied. Under Ex. A.1 the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to opposite parties on 18-04-2007, for which Ex.A2 receipt was also issued. The complainant paid Rs.1200 US $ to the opposite parties on 16-06-2007 under Ex.A4. They also paid Rs.20,000/- under Ex.A5 Ex.A6 is the receipt evidencing the payment of 1200 US $ under Ex.A4. Though the complainant stated that he also paid Rs.20,000/- under the original of Ex.A3 to the opposite parties, it is a pay order in the name of Canadian High Commission at New Delhi. It was not issued in the name of the opposite parties. Thus it is quite evident that the opposite parties, who received the amounts for rendering immigration services to the complainant, failed to keep up their promise.
Their contention that the applicant is not entitled for refund of the fees paid is evidenced, by any document. The opposite parties were clearly deficient in not rendering the necessary services to the complainant though received considerable amount from him. So, the complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid to the opposite parties.
14. Point No.IV:- The opposite parties in their counter took a vague plea that the case is bad for non joinder of Canadian High Commission. We cannot appreciate the stand taken by the opposite parties as the complainant had paid the amounts to opposite party only, and as such he is entitled to ask for refund of the same from them only. So, the complaint is not bad for non joinder of the Canadian High Commission.
15. Point No. V:- While discussing on point No.3, we clearly held that the opposite parties were deficient in service. The complainant got issued a notice under Ex.A7 to opposite parties. Though they received the same, did not even care to reply. Such an action is construed as deficiency in service. The complainant suffered for about more than one year to get back his amount, as opposite party failed to provide him the necessary placements or immigration services. So, his entitled for compensation for the mental agony caused to him. The ends of Justice would be met if, we award the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the agony caused to the complainant.
16. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts now being directed. Under Exs.A1 and Ex.A2 the complainant paid Rs.30,000/-. Under Ex.A5 he paid Rs.20,000/-. Under Exs.A4 & A6 he paid 1200 US $ which is equalant to Rs.50,000/-. So, the complainant is justified in asking for refund of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties are directed to pay the same with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e.,24-07-2008 till the date of payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant. They are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
17. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one Lakh only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e., 24-07-2008 till the date of payment.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousands only) and also Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousands only) towards costs of this complaint to the complainant.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 December 2011
Thank you So much Mr.Ajay Sethi, for providing the citation.
The case number and the forum reference is missing. This will help me to cite this as my case law.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 December 2011
Nothing more required to add in the detailed reply of ajay.
