IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 148/S/2014.                         DATED :31.03.2016.            

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PPRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &                     

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT                 : KUNDAN RAI,

  S/o. Puskal Rai,

  Upper Mamring,

  P.O.- Bagora,

  P.S.- Dilaram.

O.Ps.           1.                  : RAJKUMAR THAPA,

  S/o. Late Padam Bahadur Thapa,

  Tori Bari, Jabra More,

                                                              P.O.- Naxalbari, Dist.- Darjeeling.

2.                   : NITYANANDA MALGOPE,

  C/o. Mitali Ghosh,

        Opposite S. B. I. Bank, Airport More,

  Lower Bagdogra, P.O. & P.S. - Bagdogra,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Self.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that pursuant to an advertisement, by M/s International Agencies in a daily Nepali Language newspaper offering jobs in different countries, the complainant met with the OP No.2 at Bagdogra where he was informed that the salary of Hotel Receptionist would be Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- in Singapore.  The OPs advised the complainant to pay initially Rs.64,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- that he was required to pay, and the complainant made the said payment on 24.03.2014, and he deposited his passport at the office of the OPs as directed by them.  On that occasion, the OPs had informed him that he would get the visa within three months.  However, the complainant was asked by the OPs to pay a fresh sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, and on 06.06.2014 he made the said payment.  On 16.06.2014 he paid the remaining Rs.95,000/- to the OPs, and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- for medical check-up.  The OPs informed the complainant over

Contd……P/2

-:2:-

telephone on 19.06.2014, that the flight to Singapore would start on 20.06.2014.  However, when he obtained the ticket and visa, he found that it was valid for only three months, and the OPs assured the complainant that the visa would be extended for two years after he reached Singapore.  The complainant claims that he has not received his passport, and he approached the OPs who agreed to refund his money and passport very soon.  However, the OPs did not refund the money or return the passport, and accordingly, the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the sum of Rs.2,63,000/- and for return of the passport, and he prays for some other reliefs as well.             

OP No.1 contested the case and filed written objection denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  OP No.1 stated that the complainant has filed fake money receipt as per Annexure B, C, D, E.  The complainant has already got Passport, Visa, Air ticket, appointment letter from the Singapore Hotel.  The complainant was on Singapore for work.  This OP has nothing to do with the complainant’s allegation.  Complainant failed to prove actual money receipt of Rs.2,63,000/-.  The complainant has already had passport with him.  The OP No.1 is not liable to pay compensation amount and cost of litigation.  Hence, the case should be liable to be dismissed with cost. 

In this case OP No.2 did not appear and contest the case. 

Points for decision

1.       Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?

2.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?   

Decision with reason

To prove the case the complainant has filed the affidavit-in-chief and some document Annexure 1 to Annexure 6 only and one agreement of contractual work appears to be done on 24.03.2014 in between the parties. 

On scrutiny of these documents, it appears that these documents mainly alleged money receipt dated 06.06.2014, 11.03.2014, secondly receipt of passport application from Kundan Rai  and another receipt dated 16.06.2014 of Rs.95,000/-, but these documents have not been proved by the complainant Kundan Rai who has lodged this complaint.  There is no seal and signature of the recipient and stamp.  Nothing can be presumed that Kundan Rai has pain money to someone as per digital number embodied therein.  The stamp paper

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

on which agreement stated to be done, has not been proved.  Another document 23.07.2014, the same has also not been proved by the parties named therein.

On these premises, the document filed by the complainant is unsuccessful to bring any benefit to the complainant.

The complainant has claimed which has been written above is not proved with reliable evidence.  So, the allegation of the complainant is not proved by adducing cogent evidence. 

So, the case fails. 

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.148/S/2014 is dismissed but without any cost.   

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.