Immigration firm booked for fraud

Chandigarh, October 27
Tightening its noose around the immigration firms, which are duping people on the pretext of sending them abroad, the Chandigarh Police registered another case against a Sector 34-based immigration firm, AKME Carrier World, on the complaint of Rajnish Anand hailing from Punjab for duping him of Rs 9 lakh.

According to the police, Rajnish, a resident of Kathgarh village near Balachaur in Nawanshahr district, alleged that even after paying Rs 9 lakh to the immigration firm, neither he was sent abroad nor the firm returned his money.

The police said the complainant was promised that he would be sent abroad, however, despite repeated requests neither he was sent abroad nor his money was returned.

Policemen said at present they had come across a single complaint against the immigration firm, however, during investigation they would be tracing other customers to establish whether there are more victims of the immigration fraud.

On the basis of the complaint, an investigation has been initiated and a case under Sections 420 (forgery) and 120 (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC has been registered.

Immigration firm told to refund Rs 45,000 by Consumer Court

Chandigarh, October 27
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I slapped a fine of Rs 15,000 on an immigration firm, Canin Worldwide Consultants Private Limited, for its failure in providing work visa within six months to a resident of Nawanshahr.

The complainant, Sarbjit Singh, said he had applied for work permit for Canada on October 23, 2009 by paying Rs 53,500 to the opposite party, which had assured that if the work visa is not arranged within six months then Rs 45,000 would be refunded, as per the clause 7 of the contract agreement entered between them. The complainant further paid US$300 as per the agreement. The complainant alleged that thereafter he approached the opposite party a number of times but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other by giving false assurances.

No one appeared on behalf of the immigration firm.

The district forum comprising of president PD Goel and members, Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjir Kaur Sahota, observed that the opposite party has failed to arrange the work visa within the stipulated period of six months. The opposite party also failed to provide the promised services, which amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party. Otherwise also, the allegations made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted, as nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party to contest the case. The forum also directed the immigration firm to refund Rs 45,000 to the complainant, besides Rs 2,500 as the costs of litigation failing the opposite party would be liable to pay the entire amount to the complainant, along with the interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation.

Consumer court raps Chandigarh Estate Office

Admn fined Rs 50,000 for procedural wranglings

Chandigarh, October 27
Showcasing illegality in official proceedings and causing public harassment due to procedural wrangling has been highlighted in a severe reprimand that the estate office of the UT Administration recently received at the hands of a local consumer court.

The court has since ordered the Administration to pay Rs 25,000 each to Avtar Singh and Anup Singh in a case pertaining to harassment and delay caused in transfer of a property in Sector 35 in their names.

The Administration was also asked to pay litigation costs of Rs 5,500. It was also asked to recover the amount along with interest and costs from the salary of the defaulting officials due to whose inaction the matter was delayed.

Surmukh Singh, Babbar Singh and Lakhbir Singh had obtained a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the estate office for the sale of 50 per cent of a property in Sector 35 in the name of Avtar Singh and Jagtar Singh, sons of Anup Singh. Surmukh Singh, who was in the Army, was asked to cancel his leave and return to duty and the sale deed could not be executed. He executed a power of attorney with the sub-registrar who registered the sale deed in the name of the buyers.

Later, Avtar Singh applied for transfer of property in his name, which the estate office kept pending. The complainant was asked to submit Rs 12,000, which he did. Even then, the matter was not disposed of. The estate office took the position that the sellers had not informed it that they were selling the house through general power of attorney (GPA) and that the estate office had not been supplied a copy of the rectified sale deed.

After going through details of the case, the court said: “The approach of the estate office in this regard was not only unjustified but also illegal.” It had not been able to cite any law under which it was required to be informed by the complainant or the owner about the execution of a power of attorney. And the orders issued by the authorities were not binding, it stated.

The order read: “It is desired that such like office orders pertaining to the rights of the general public should be examined by the estate office in light of the law of the land before issuing the same. We have no hesitation in concluding that the owner of the property has a right to execute the GPA for the transfer of ownership rights in favour of the person an owner likes.”