1.     ASMACS,

39/4022, Near Gokulam Daycare,

Opposite Srikrishna Lodge,

Ravipuram Road,

Cochin – 682 016,

Rep. by its Manager.

(By Adv. Russel Joy)

2.     Keralakumaran Nair,

Jayasree Nivas,

Kaithackal, Anayadi.P.O.,

Pallickal Village,

Adoor Taluk.                                                    …..    Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                   Complainant has filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that he is an ITI certificate holder in Electrical.  The complainant was in search for a job abroad and the complainant got in touch with the 2^nd opposite party and he made the complainant to believe that he is an agent of the 1^st opposite party and told the complainant that he will arrange a job at Muscat on payment of ` 50,000.  Accordingly on 26.11.07, the complainant along with the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party went to the office of the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party and paid ` 50,000 as agreed.  At that time the 1^st opposite party assured that he will arrange a job visa to the complainant within one month from that date.  As directed by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant had given his passport to the 1^st opposite party, who had given a receipt for the same.  But the 1^st opposite party had not given a receipt for the cash payment in spite of his request for the same.  However, even after two months, opposite parties has not arranged his visa as promised and also there was no positive reply from the opposite party thereafter. So the complainant himself and through mediators contacted the opposite parties more than once.  But all his efforts were in vain.  The above said act of the opposite party caused financial loss, mental agony and other sufferings to the complainant and it is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for getting the passport and for the realization of ` 50,000 with 12% interest along with compensation of ` 25,000 and cost of this proceedings from the opposite parties.

                   3. The main contentions of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:-  The 1^st opposite party have no business within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the 2^nd opposite party is not an agent of the 1^st opposite party and hence this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The 2^nd opposite party was arrayed only for the purpose of falsely implicating jurisdiction to this Forum.  The 1^st opposite party denied the allegation that they have collected ` 50,000 from the complainant.  The complainant had directly applied to the employer, i.e. Femco Saudi Arabia for a visa. The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party and the said company had a contract for providing service to the said company in connection with the recruitment and the visa were issued by the company only through the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  The first opposite party also helps the job seekers to clear immigration formalities for a small service charge.  The employer company had sent a visa for the complainant to this opposite party and for the processing the visa and it was duly stamped on 1.1.08 and informed the complainant to collect the visa and the ticket.  But the complainant informed the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party that he had been suffering from some ailments and promised that he would collect the visa and ticket later.  But he had not turned up to collect the visa or the ticket so far.  Due to the above said act of the complainant, the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party suffered a loss of ` 65,975 under various heads and they have forced to give compensation of ` 25,000 as visa charge to the employer company as per the terms of the contract with the employer company and the complainant is liable to compensate the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party had promptly provided proper service to the complainant.  They have not committed any deficiency in service.  With the above contentions, the 1^st opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.

                    4.  2^nd opposite party is exparte.

                   5. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following point are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint?

(3)   Reliefs and Costs?

           6. The evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant in lieu of his chief examination and Ext.A1.  For the opposite party, there is no oral or documentary evidence.  After closure of evidence, the complainant was heard.

                   7. Point No.1:- This matter was heard earlier in I.A.83/10 filed by the 1^st opposite party.  The said I.A. was posted along with the complaint for considering the question of territorial jurisdiction raised by the 1^st opposite party for considering the same at the time of evidence as this question has to be decided on evidence.  But in the evidence stage, the 1^st opposite party has not turned up or challenged the averments in the proof affidavit of the complainant and has not adduced any evidence in their favour.  Hence we find this point in favour of the complainant.  In view of the finding in point No.1, I.A.No.83/10 is disposed.

                   8. Point Nos. 2 & 3:-  The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that the opposite parties had not arranged visa and air tickets to the complainant for going abroad for an employment after receiving ` 50,000 and they have not even return the amount or the passport collected by them from the complainant.  In order to prove the complainant’s allegations, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case in lieu of his chief examination along with one document.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the document produced is marked as Ext.A1.  Ext. A1 is the receipt-dated 26.11.07 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the complainant for receiving the complainant’s passport.

                   9. From the side of the 1^st opposite party, there is no oral or documentary evidence.

                   10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the complainant, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the complainant had entrusted his passport to the 1^st opposite party in connection with an employment visa.  According to the complainant, at the time of entrusting the passport he had also paid an amount of ` 50,000 for getting the visa through the efforts of the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  But the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party’s contention, as per the version, is that they had collected ` 10,000/- from the complainant as service charges for the processing of the complainant’s visa and they are providing this service on the basis of the contract between the 1^st opposite party and the employer company.  But they have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contentions at the evidence stage of this complaint.  At the same time, the complainant had not adduced any cogent evidence for convincing this Forum, that he had paid ` 50,000 to the opposite party.  But it is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant had given his passport to the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party.  It is also evident from the version of the opposite party that they have received ` 10,000 and the passport from the complainant.  The remaining part of this transaction is not brought before this Forum with any cogent or independent evidence from either side.  So we are not inclined to find any deficiency in respect of the other transactions.  It is not in dispute about the delivery of the passport by the complainant and the receipt of ` 10,000 by the opposite parties from the complainant. Since the opposite parties failed to prove their contentions that they are the agents of the employer company and they have stamped the visa etc. and the complainant failed to collect the stamped visa and ticket.  At the same time, the complainant also failed in proving that he had paid ` 50,000 to the 1^st opposite party in connection with the transactions.  In the circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get back his passport and ` 10,000 and the opposite party is liable to return the same.  From the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to allow any cost or compensation.  Hence we find that this complaint is allowable in part.  However, in the absence of any evidence against the 2^nd opposite party, we find no deficiency in service or any liability to the complainant.

                   11. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and thereby the 1^st opposite party is directed to return the complainant’s passport and ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize ` 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) from the 1^st opposite party with 9% interest from today till the whole realization.

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25^th day of October, 2010.

                                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                                              Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                                  (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)           :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)              :         (Sd/-)

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Passport Receipt dated 26.11.2007 issued by the 1^st opposite party to 

             the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil. 

                                                                                           (By Order)

                                                                                Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Madhusoodanan Nampoothiri, Thamaramangalathu Illam,

                     Arattupuzha.P.O., Aranmula Village, Kozhencherry Taluk.

(2)  Manager, ASMACS, 39/4022, Near Gokulam Daycare,

 Opposite Srikrishna Lodge, Ravipuram Road, Cochin – 682 016.

                (3) Keralakumaran Nair, Jayasree Nivas, Kaithackal, Anayadi.P.O.,

      Pallickal Village, Adoor Taluk.

 (4) The Stock File.