Canada PR for Nurse case: Immigration Firm directed to refund Rs. 94,640 to Punjab-based Nurse despite prior settlement
Harvinder Kaur
Tarn Taran (Punjab), November 23, 2024: Stating “Necessit as nonhabet” which means “necessity knows no law”, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran directed Worldwide Immigration, Amritsar-based Immigration firm to refund Rs. 94640 to a Batala based Nurse along with the compensation of Rs 10,000 and Rs 7,500 litigation expenses even after signing consent letter before and reaching an agreement.
"The opposite party has stated that the complainant is not eligible to receive the remaining amount as she has signed the consent letter. But we do not agree with the stand of the opposite party because the complainant was at the receiving end and she was under compulsion considering something is better than nothing but she is entitled to the remaining amount also.....Merely because the complainant has issued no due certificate and if there is no claim, the court cannot reject the same on the ground of issuance of No Due Certificate," the Tarn Taran Consumer Forum noted.
Case
Rekha, a resident of Batala moved to Consumer Forum in Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd, alleging unfair trade practices.
In her complaint, Rekha through her counsel stated that induced/lured by big dreams shown by the concerned immigration firm through the Ads of OPs on TV & other sources, the complainant was enticed to provide services for PR/Visa for herself & her family comprising of herself, her husband & one daughter (at the time of application) now 2nd daughter also, for the country Canada.
"The contract was executed under Quebec Skilled Worker category in Canada for the job of GNM after the OPS assessed the entire merit by calculating points which as per their calculations, worked out to be 60 they said that the requirement of points for PR is 57 and the C was assured sure shot success i.e. 100% success based on qualification age experience, kids, spouse age, IELTS, 1 baby, funds etc, leaving no doubt in the mind of complainant. The O.P. thoroughly examined the profile of the complainant and assured that there was not even a single lacunae or shortcoming in the entire profile as the information supplied by the complainant was true and correct. The complainant was employed as a Staff Nurse by the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Punjab vide letter No. 6(3)-H-1606 Dt. 30-06-2011 and since then the complainant is rendering good services to the department being a qualified Nurse," the Counsel of the complainant told the forum.
The complainant also alleged that got so many documents signed on dotted lines without explaining the entire contents contained in voluminous drafts of contracts which are fully unilateral. Signing on dotted lines means compulsion where the consumer has no option, she stated.
"Though the Immigration firm satisfied themselves with the funds of the complainant and her family which proves the affordability of the family for PR to Canada, processed the case further. The Immigration firm. Further examined the passports of the complainant and her husband as well as of her daughter which were valid at that time After the entire case was processed and after the case was forwarded to the Immigration Authorities where an objection was raised which the Immigration firm failed either to foresee or failed to clarify their stand and failed miserably to get the PR visa approved leaving the dreams of the complainant. The Immigration firm failed to render proper services which were assured by them and which was also expected from them. The question arises whether the Immigration firm had little expertise to examine the merit of the case and have no good workers/ employees qualified enough to scrutinize the case in the true sense as well as letter and spirit causing a lot of inconvenience to the public at large. The Immigration firm has thus resorted to unfair trade practice by minting lots of money from the complainant and other people and not to refund the full amount without caring for the promises made by them to the complainant and general public," the complaint noted.
Immigration Fund (Opposite Party)
Worldwide Immigration through its counsel stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the principle of Promissory Estoppel as the complainant vide consent letters for an amount of Rs.36,000/-, Rs.10,000/- & US$ 450 equivalent to Rs.29,250/- total amounting to Rs.75,250/-, copy of the said consent letters dated 08.06.2017 are Annexure R-1, R-2 & R-3 respectively, agreed to receive an amount of Rs.75,250/- and later on filed a police complaint which was investigated by Economic Offences Wing (EOW in short), Amritsar, and in which a settlement arrived between the parties and the complainant compromised the matter and signed a consent letter.
The party added that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is fully applicable in the instant case and the complainant cannot refuse to abide by her promise made by way of a consent letter.
Court Order
The Consumer Court noted that the complainant was at the receiving end and she was under compulsion considering something is better than nothing but she is entitled to the remaining amount also. Because the opposite party has admitted that due to heavy rush the application of the complainant was not processed/ transmitted.
As such, the complainant has suffered an irreparable loss. In this regard, our apex court in various Judgments held that merely because the complainant has issued no due certificate and if there is no claim, the court cannot reject the same on the ground of issuance of No Due Certificate.
A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Commission, New Delhi in the matter of Singireddy Ramana Murthy Vs M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. 2002 NCJ 555 (NC), and a similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held which is based on Maxim “Necessit as non habet” which means “necessity knows no law”. A person may sometimes have to succumb to the pressure of the other party so the bargain is in a stronger position. As such, the acceptance of part payment by the complainant of Rs. 75,000/- was out of force and compulsion for fear of losing this amount.