Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd vs Gagandeep Singh Monga

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (''the State Commission'') dated 20.05.2014, whereby the State Commission has allowed the appeal preferred against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (''the District Forum'') and directed the complainant as under: "Refund Rs.15,000/ - as well as US $ 2500 along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till payment; To pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh as compensation for harassment and playing with the career of the complainant; and To pay Rs.11,000/ - as litigation expenses".

BRIEFLY put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent Gagandeep Singh Monga filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner/ opposite parties being complaint no. CC/12/155 in the District Forum, Patiala alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in pursuant to his application for permanent immigration to Canada.

THE consumer complaint was resisted by the opposite party on merit. The opposite party also took the plea that the consumer complaint was not maintainable for the reasons that before filing of the complaint, the respondent/ complainant had received payment of Rs.15,000/ - as well as US $ 2500 as full and final settlement of his claim. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and evidence dismissed the complaint.

BEING aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the respondent/ complainant preferred an appeal and the State Commission, Punjab vide its impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and directed as recorded above.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr Sunil Goyal has assailed the impugned order of the State Commission on the ground that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the dispute in question has already been settled before filing of the complaint and as such the consumer complaint was not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the consent letters duly signed by the respondent/ complainant on 17.12.2011.

SHRI Amarjeet Singh Monga, father -cum -Authorised Representative of the respondent on the contrary contended that the consent letters were signed by the complainant under duress. It is further contended that within a few days after signing of the consent letter the complainant has sent receipts dated 28.01.2012 making it clear that the amount was accepted under protest. In support of his contention, the authorised representative of the respondent has now tendered the copies of three receipts. It is also contended that the revision petition has been filed under the signatures of one Bharat Lal Chaudhary, Assistant Branch Manager, World Wide Immigration Consultancy Service Ltd., who was not authorised to file the revision petition on behalf of petitioner no. 3 and as such order against petitioner no. 3 has become final.

WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The sole question which needs consideration is whether or not the respondent/complainant voluntarily settled the subject matter of the dispute vide consent letters dated 17.12.2011 and if so, whether the consumer complaint filed after the compromise is maintainable?

IN order to find answer to this question, it is necessary to have a look on the consent letters. The draft of the consent letters is exactly similar. Therefore, contents of one of the letters is reproduced as under: "Gagandeep Singh Monga son of Shri S Amarjeet Singh Monga, resident of House no. 15, Brar Street, Near 22 no. Phatak, Patiala availed the professional services of M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., and their associated companies for getting immigration to Canada. I hereby give my consent to receive an amount of Rs.15,000/ - (rupees fifteen thousand only) towards refund. The settlement has been granted by the company as a special case, although the same is not warranted under the terms of the contract signed by me with the company.

I hereby declare and certify that the settlement arrived at between the parties is of free will on both the sides and without there being any element of coercion or undue influence.

I further declare and stated that I shall have no further claim, whatsoever against the company once the above said payment is received by me and the settlement referred to above shall be towards full and final settlement for all times to come. I shall not file any legal case or raise any claim against the company for refund/ damages ever in future".

ON a reading of the above letters it is clear that the amount of Rs.15,000/ - and US $ 2500 was received by the complainant in full and final settlement of his claim. The consent letters are verified, wherein, the complainant has affirmed that he has properly read and understood the contents of the consent letter before appending his signatures of his own free will and without any misrepresentation, coercion and undue influence etc. Thus, it is evident that the respondent/ complainant had voluntarily settled the matter in dispute and received the amount in the respective consent letters in full and final settlement of his claim.

AS the complainant had already settled the dispute with the opposite party by receiving Rs. 15,000/ - and Rs. US $2500, he is estopped from re -agitating the dispute already settled by filing a consumer complaint. During the course of arguments, authorised representative of the respondent has tried to wriggle out of the situation by referring to three receipts dated 28.01.2012 tendered at the time of arguments, wherein respondent complainant had recorded that he has received the amount as above under protest. These receipts are of no avail to the respondent complainant, firstly for the reason that the respondent complainant by encashing the cheques for the amounts paid in furtherance of the settlement letters has acted upon the settlement. It appears that the receipts have been unilaterally created as an after -thought with a view to create ground for filing consumer complaint.

IN view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the State Commission has committed impropriety by ignoring the fact that the consumer complaint itself was not maintainable because the settlement has been reached between the parties. Therefore, we allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint.

THE amount deposited in terms of order dated 30.09.2014 be refunded to the petitioner with accrued interest, if any.