Complaint No: 80 of 2022.
Date of Institution: 31.05.2022.
Date of order: 08.11.2023.
Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Makhan Singh, resident of Village Attepur, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143506.
…......Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Blessing Overseas Consultants, Near Daily Needs, Opposite Apollo, Pharmacy, Putlighar G.T. Road Amritsar, Tehsil and District, Amritsar, through its Authorized Signatory Ramanpreet Kaur. Pin Code – 143002.
2. Ramanpreet Kaur w/o Harmandeep Singh R/o Village Talanwan, Near Mallian, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Pin Code – 143149.
3. Harmandeep Singh S/o Not known R/o Village Talanwan, Near Mallian, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Pin Code – 143149.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Anand Mahajan, Advocate.
Opposite parties: Exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Satnam Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Blessing Overseas Consultants Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the son of complainant namely Komalpreet Singh was unemployed and he had intention to go abroad for earning his livelihood and for that purpose the complainant and his son came into contact with the opposite parties No.2 and 3 being husband and wife as they are running a travel agency under the name & style of Blessing Overseas Consultants, Amritsar i.e. opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that then the opposite parties assured complainant that they will send his son on the basis of Work Permit Visa of Dubai and also assured that in Dubai they will provide job of security Guard to son of the complainant and for that purpose opposite parties No.2 and 3 demanded Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac, Fifty thousand only) from the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant in month of January 2021 had transferred the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from his account to the account of the opposite party No.3 by way of NEFT. It is further pleaded that after receiving the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- opposite party No.2 on the letter paid of the opposite party No. 1 gave written assurance to the complainant regarding above mentioned commitment of sending his son at Dubai and also providing job of Security Guard. It is further pleaded that complainant has hired the services of the opposite parties as mentioned above as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that as per assurance the opposite parties have failed to provide work permit visa for son of the complainant and instead of that they send the son of complainant at Dubai on the basis of one month Tourist Visa with the assurance that after reaching at Dubai they will provide work permit visa as well as job of security Guard to son of the complainant. It is further pleaded that on assurance of the opposite parties the son of the complainant went to Dubai on one month Tourist Visa. It is further pleaded that after his arrival at Dubai opposite parties had failed to provide work permit Visa and job of Security Guard as per their assurance. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant approached many times to the opposite parties and demanded his amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite parties as they had failed to provide work permit Visa and job of Security Guard as per their assurance but the opposite parties despite of repeated requests put the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter on 10.02.2022, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties through his counsel but the opposite parties have failed to comply with the legal notice and failed to make the payment of Rs,1,50,000/- to the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant. The opposite parties may also be burdened with a cost of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and torture and the opposite parties may be directed to pay the same to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 20.07.2022. Similarly, opposite party No.1 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 20.01.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Satnam Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10.
5. Written arguments not filed by the complainant.
6. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite parties through NEFT for sending the son namely Komalpreet Singh of the complainant to Dubai and for providing job of security guard. However, the opposite parties had send the son of the complainant to Dubai on one month tourist visa but failed to provide any work permit visa to the son of the complainant. Complainant had thereafter requested the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- but the opposite parties totally refused to refund the amount and since the complainant had availed services of the opposite parties against payment and as such falls under the definition of consumer.
7. Opposite parties remained exparte.
8. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.
9. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1/A, copies of statement of account Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 as per which amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has transferred to the account of opposite party No.3 on 22.01.2021, writing of the letter pad Ex.C4, copy of passport Ex.C5, copies of legal notice and postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C9.
10. Perusal of statement of account Ex.C3 clearly proves transfer of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- in the account of opposite party No.3 and further perusal of Ex.C4 shows that opposite party No.2 has undertaken to refund the amount if opposite parties failed to provide job to the son of the complainant and the plea of the complainant that opposite parties failed to arrange job as promised and said evidence has remained unrebutted on record. As such we have no hesitation in holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Nov. 08, 2023 Member.
*YP*
