Date: 18-08-2016

This is a complaint made by one Rajen Kumar Chowdhury against Aapka Roozgar Services Pvt. Ltd. having its offices in Delhi and Noida, U.P., praying for a direction upon the OP to provide reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.

Facts, in brief, are that Complainant is residing at C/154/4, Sonali Park, Bansdroni, Kolkata – 700 070.  He received a call from one Rishu Goel, who introduced herself as a Director of the OP company.  It is stated that at the insistence of the OP, the Complainant made some transactions – the first one being for a sum of Rs. 505/62 and the second one for a sum of Rs. 3,594/40, including service tax.  The second transaction was insisted upon by said Rishu Goel stating that if the said transaction gets debited from Complainant’s bank account, they would reimburse double the said transaction amount.  Subsequently, another person, namely, Rahul, tried to force the Complainant to make another transaction of Rs. 1,500/- in the same manner as of second transaction, but this time he put his foot down.  It is also stated that the OP promised him to arrange for a job with salary of Rs. 3,50,000/- p.a. against payment of a nominal amount of Rs. 500/- as registration charge.  But, despite payment of said amount, he has not got any job, as promised.  Hence, the present complaint.

On the basis of above facts, notices were served through paper publication, but OPs have not turned up.  So, the case was heard ex parte.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed written argument stating the facts which he has stated in the petition of complaint.

Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief.

On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for getting refund of Rs. 7,694.42 with interest @ 12% p.a.  The basis of claiming this amount as mentioned in the prayer portion of the complaint appears to be not in consistent with what is mentioned in the complaint petition.  Furthermore, it appears that in the form of document, only copies of some email correspondences have been filed.  These copies of emails also do not corroborate the amount as mentioned in his petition of complaint.

On perusal of cause title, it appears that both the offices of the OP are situated outside this state.  So, the question remains, whether this Forum has got any jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute. No satisfactory explanation is put forth from the side of the Complainant as to how the present case lies before this Forum.

Further, on due consideration of the nature of dispute, as stated in the petition of complaint, it appears that the Complainant fell prey to the fraud practiced upon him by the OPs.  We afraid, fraud related matters do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

If we consider the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it would appear that the driving force behind initiation of present complaint is nothing but getting financial/monetary relief.  This aspect also cannot be attained through initiation of proceedings under the C.P. Act.

Lastly, the Complainant has sought for a compensation of Rs. 18,90,000/- and another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation cost.  This the Complainant has claimed against alleged payment of mere Rs. 7,694.42 to the OP.  Against the context of nature of dispute as detailed in the petition of complaint, no doubt, the present complaint is an exaggeration beyond proportion.

For all these reasons, we are of view that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

Hence,

ORDERED

that CC/75/2016 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OP.  No order as to costs.