DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                Consumer Complaint No.  407 of 2016                                          Date of institution:  02.07.2016                                         Date of decision   :  16.10.2017

Krishan Kumar son of Om Pakash Dhull, resident of VPO Bhana, District Kaithal, Haryana 136043.

                             ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Swastic Associates, SCO 5 (Level-1), Ranjan Plaza (Near Big Bazar), Zirakpur, Punjab.

                                                       ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12  to 14  

Of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Mukesh Verma, counsel for the complainant.

                Opposite Party ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Krishan Kumar has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The OP vide advertisement dated 03.06.2015 invited application for job placements. The complainant who is unemployed went to the OP on 04.06.2015 and then the OP charged Rs.2,000/- from the complainant as registration charges. The complainant was told that the interviews would be conducted at his native State in Haryana and he will be  adjusted/placed/appointed in a company in Haryana.  Thereafter, the OP demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for arranging his interviews but the complainant deposited Rs.6,000/- with the OP  vide receipt No.CR 963 for arranging interviews. It was mentioned in receipt No.CR 963 that if the OP  is unable to arrange interview then the whole amount would be refundable and if the complainant does not join any company in which he was selected or left the job without any information, then the payment is not refundable.  If the complainant refused/quit to conduct any interview due to any personal reason before joining in the company, then deduction of 40% to 60% will be made and the remaining amount would be refunded within three weeks in the bank account. The OP told the complainant he would be called within 15 days for participation in the interview.   However, the complainant did not receive any call from the OP even after one month. The complainant repeated calling the OP but his calls were not attended to.    In October, 2015 the complainant approached the OP for refund of his amount and the complainant was told to wait for 15 days more.  Again there was no response from the OP and ultimately the complainant approached the OP on 12.03.2016 for refund of the amount.  The OP gave him proforma application for refund in such a manner that the complainant could not claim any refund in future and if claimed the same be refunded after deduction.   The complainant was told that within three weeks the amount would be refunded in his bank account. The complainant was also told that when he will send e-mail for refund, an automatic generated reply will be received by the complainant. The complainant sent e-mail on 13.03.2016 for refund of the amount but neither the automatic generated reply was received nor payment was refunded in the bank account of the complainant.  Since 03.06.2015 the complainant has neither been called for interview nor the amount has been refunded.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him Rs.6,000/-; Rs.2,000/- as registration charges and to pay him Rs.2,00,000/-for mental agony and harassment and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.             The notice sent by this Forum to the OP received back with the report of ‘refusal’.  Hence, as per provisions of Section 28 A (3) of the Consumer Protection, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2017.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of advertisement Ex.C-1; receipt Ex.C-2; e-mail Ex.C-3 and application Ex.C-4.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the in response to the advertisement Ex.C-1 the complainant deposited Rs.,6000/- with the OP vide letter Ex.C-2 wherein it was clearly mentioned that if the Op is unable to arrange placement, the amount would be refunded. The Op failed to conduct any interview for the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that the OP deliberately got filled proforma Ex.C-4 from the complainant mischievously to escape its liability whereas the OP itself failed to conduct any interview for the complainant.  He has further submitted that the Op has not issued receipt of Rs.2,000/- which the Op has charged as registration charged from the complainant.

6.             After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence and the written as well as oral submissions, it is established that the complainant on going through the advertisement Ex.C-1 contacted the OP for placement. The OP charged Rs.6,000/- from the complainant for getting conducted his interview in the company and assured that if it failed to get the interview conducted of the complainant in any company, the amount would be refunded.  When on not providing the service, the complainant contacted the OP for refund, the OP in a clever manner gave him the proforma the conditions of which suited the OP.  However, even after submitting the proforma with the OP through e-mail, the amount has not been refunded to the complainant which act on the part of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The OP has refused to receive the notice sent by this Forum and did not appear.  The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.6,000/-     (Rs. Six Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9%  per annum w.e.f. 04.06.2015 till actual payment  and to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 16.10.2017

                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)
 President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member