IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 248/14
Friday the 10th day of July, 2015
Petitioner : Don Bosco.K.G
S/o K.J. George,
Rose house,
St. Dominic Savio Lane,
Pallithura Kara, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Avaneesh. V.N)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) Benny Chacko,
Alans International Education and
Immigration Service, Room No.19,
1st floor, N.S.S. Karayogam Building,
Perunna, Changanacherry Residing at
Vadakkummuriyil House,
Eraviperoor PO, Vallamkulam,
Pathanamthitta, 689542.
2) Jancy Benny,
W/o Beeny Chacko,
Alans Interational Education and
Immigration Service, Room No.19, 1st
floor, N.S.S. Karayogam Building,
Perunna, Changanchery Residing at –
do - do -
(.OP 1& 2 Adv. Abijith S.)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 16/7/14 is as follows.
The opposite parties were conducting a travel agency jointly in the name of Style Alans International Educational and immigration service at Changanacherry. On seeing the advertisement published on 3-12-13 by the opposite parties, the complainant approached the opposite parties office at Perunna. And the opposite parties promised to arrange job family visa and permanent residence in Georgea. They also demanded for Rs.7,30,000/- for arranging the job visa and other offered facilities. On believing the representation made by the opposite parties the complainant remitted Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of the 2nd opposite party through his account and they issued receipt. According to the complainant as per the direction of the opposite parties he had remitted Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,30,000/- in the account of the 2nd opposite party through his account on 15-1-14 and 21-1-14 respectively. On 23-1-14 2nd opposite party informed to the complainant that the visa is ready and it was collected from the office of the opposite parties. On examination it was understood that the visa is only to Dubai. So complainant enquired about the visa, the opposite parties made believing representation that she will get the visa to Georgia only from Dubai when they reached there. On believing the representation made by the opposite parties, complainant on 26-1-14 went to Dubai, when he reached in Dubai on 27-1-14 the 2nd opposite party informed that they get the visa to Georgia only from Armenia. Then the 2nd opposite party sent the complainant and others to Armenia in a visiting visa and they were stayed in Armenia for 34 days. But the visa to Georgia was not arranged by the opposite parties. So the complainant and other persons contacted the 2nd opposite party and she was promised that they will arrange job visa to Jamaica instead of Georgia. So the complainant returned to New Delhi and stayed 30 days at Delhi for getting visa to Jamaica. And the opposite parties sent the complainant and others to Jamaica. When they reached at Jamaica Airport the complainant understood that the visa arranged by the opposite party is a visiting visa and not a job visa. Their passport were detained at the Airport immigration. At last the complainant and others returned to Kerala. The expenses in all those places where they stayed during journey was met by themselves and not by the opposite parties. The complainant was spent 3 lakh as expenses in addition to the amount given to the opposite parties. According to the complainant on 12-12-13 the 2nd opposite party issued receipt to the complainant and 2nd opposite party executed an agreement admitting that of the working permit will not provide they will give back the full amount. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties in non-providing the visa to Georgia amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
The case was posted for version for 10 posting dates. Opposite party has not filed any version till 11-2-15 , this case posted for evidence of the petitioner. On 29-4-15 opposite party filed version and on 4-5-15 opposite parties filed IA 163/15 for accepting the same. IA allowed and directed the opposite party to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. But opposite parties has neither represented nor paid the cost. So version is not considered.
Points for determinations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A6 documents.
Point No.1
According to the complainant on seeing the advertisement made by the opposite parties in Malayala Manorama Daily, complainant approached the opposite party. On enquiry opposite party stated that they will arrange a job with family visa and permanent residence at Georgea. According to the complainant opposite party accepted Rs.7,30,000/- for visa purpose. On 23-1-14 when the complainant reached the opposite parties of 2nd opposite party for collecting the visa she understood that the visa is only up Dubai and opposite party made representation believed to the complainant that the visa to Georgea will be availed only when they reach Dubai. As per the direction of opposite parties, when the complainant arrived there some other persons joined in the group. Second opposite party sent the complainant along with others to Armenia in a visiting visa. They stayed there for 34 days, but visa to Georgea was not arranged by the opposite parties as promised. Then complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party, they told that they will arrange job visa to Jamaica instead of Georgea. Due to the pressure of circumstances complainant agreed that he is ready to go to
Jamaica. When complainant reached Jamaica he understood that the visa is only a visiting visa not a job visa. The passport of the complainant was detained at the Airport. According to the complainant he incurred an expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- for his stay during the journey at various places. The case of the complainant is proved by Ext.A1 to A6 documents. In the lack of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit and documents filed by the complainant. In our view act of opposite party in not providing proper visa as agreed amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Without saying what had happened caused much hardship, loss and sufferings to the complainant. So he is to be compensated. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 complaint is allowed.
In the result, the following order is passed.
- The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.7,30,000/- with 9% interest from 16-7-14, the date of complaint till realization, to the complainant.
- Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of July, 2015.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents for the petitioner
Ext.A1-Photocopy of passport
Ext.A2-Photocopy of receipt dtd 12/12/13
Ext.A3-Photocopy of agreement dtd 13/1/14
Ext.A4-Photocopy of form of Agreement dtd 18/3/14
Ext.A5-Photocopy of Statement of Account dtd 5/5/44 of SBT
Ext.A6-Photocopy of statement of account dtd 5-5-14
of Bank of Baroda
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
