CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM. Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No.207/10 Monday, the 30th day of November, 2010 Petitioner : Jubin Raju, Kizhakkedathu House, Vazhoor PO Seventtenth Mile, Vazhoor, Kottayam. (Adv.Oommen M. Mathew) Vs. Opposite party : James Kuriakkose @James K.Volenga, President and Chief Executive Officer(CEO) Indo-Can International Consultancy, Suit No.216, 338 Queen Street , East, Brampton, Ontario, Canada, L6V 1C4 from Vilangattussery Robin Villa, Vakkachampadi, Chethippuzha PO, Changanassery. O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member The petitioner’s case is as follows: The petitioner is a B.Sc Chemistry graduate and B.Sc Nursing graduate. The opposite party is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Indo-Can International Consultancy with offices in India. In the year 2008 the petitioner came across an advertisement made by the opposite party with respect to the recruitment of Nurses to Canada. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner made an application in the application form availed in the web site www.indocanconsult.com. As a response to the application, opposite party sent an application package stating the requirements and directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Canadian Dollar 600/- and the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.14,875/- for Canadian Dollar 350/- on 13-8-2008 through UAE Exchange and an amount of Rs.11,000/- for Canadian Dollars 250/- on 10/9/08 through the same to the account of the opposite party. Thereafter, the petitioner received an invitation to appear for an employment interview with Canadian employer or Health care authority for the permanent and fulltime position of Registered Nurse on 22/11/2008. But the petitioner was not selected in the interview. Thereafter, the petitioner received another invitation for an employment under another employer on 26/4/09 and the petitioner was selected. On 30/4/09 the petitioner was informed through telephone to come to Banglore to sign the job contract on 2/5/09 and the petitioner signed a job contract with the employer Prince Albert Parkland Health Region, Canada. Again the opposite party asked the petitioner to hand over an amount of Canadian Dollars 720/- for appearing an examination for Canadian Registration in Nursing. The petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.31,888/- for Canadian Dollars 720/- to the opposite party through UAE Exchange and Financial Services Limited on 20/6/09. The petitioner received an eligibility letter from Saskatchewan from Registered Nurses Association as a permission to write Canadian Registered Nurses Examination on 7/10/09 on payment of Canadian Dollars 508/- for which the petitioner was asked to remit Canadian Dollars 720/- by the opposite party and received the same before arranging the visa to Canada. Thereafter the petitioner waited for the visa to Canada for employment with the said employer. But to the surprise of the petitioner on 26/7/09, he had seen news in all the leading news papers in Malayalam that the opposite party was arrested in connection with ‘cheating job seekers’. On 20/8/09, the petitioner received an attached employment withdrawal letter through e-mail from Prince Albert Parkland Health Region stating that they will no longer be using the services of the Indo-Can International Consultancy due to the breach of contract from the part of Indo-can. Thereafter the petitioner tried to contact the opposite party on several occasions and the opposite party assured that once he reaches Canada, he will be able to settle and solve all the problems. The petitioner communicated this assurance to the employer but the employer replied that their offer of employment was withdrawn. So the petitioner had not taken further steps from his previous experience with the opposite party and asked the opposite party to pay the amount back. But the opposite party had not paid the amount. The petitioner alleged that the opposite party willfully evaded from providing the promised services and thus committed deficiency in service after receiving an amount of Rs.58,719/- for Canadian Dollars 1320/-. Hence the petitioner filed this petition claiming the refund of Rs. 58,719/- and litigation cost. Notice was sent to the opposite party but returned with endorsement unclaimed. So the opposite party was set expartee. Points for consideration are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner and Exts.A1 to A7. Point No.1 Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner averred that he came across an advertisement made by the opposite party with respect to the recruitment of Nurses to Canada and lured by the said advertisement he sent application to the opposite party. The petitioner further averred that he gave Rs.58,719/- to the opposite party for getting employment in Canada. The petitioner next averred that as the opposite party was arrested by the Changanachery Police in connection with cheating job seekers, the Prince Albert Parkland Health Region withdrew the employment offered by them to the petitioner. Evidencing the arrest of opposite party, the petitioner produced the Mangalam Newspaper dtd 26th July 2009 and it was marked as Ext.A3. The petitioner alleged that the opposite party after receiving Rs.58,719/- and after making promises, willfully evaded from providing the promised services and thus committed deficiency in service. As the opposite party chose not to contest the averments and allegations of the petitioner against the opposite party remain unchallenged. From the facts and circumstances of the case we hold the opposite party deficient in their service and unfair in the trade methods. Point no.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2 In view of the findings in point no. 1, the compliant is allowed. The opposite party will return Rs.58,719/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of complaint till realization to the petitioner. The opposite party will also pay litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioner. As interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2010. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Appendix Documents of the complainant 1) Ext.A1-Invitation given by the opposite party and the application submitted by the petitioner after making a payment of 600 Canadian dollars to the opposite party. 2) Ext.A2-Computer copy of receipts for payment made to the opposite party dtd 20/6/09. 3) Ext.A2(a) Receipt dtd 13/8/08 4) Ext.A2-(b) Receipt dtd 10/0/09 5) Ext.A3-Mangalam newspaper dtd 26/6/09 6) Ext.A4-Letters sent to the petitioner by the employer dtd 20/8/09 7) Ext.A5- Computer copy of e-mail between the petitioner and the opposite party. 8) Ext.A6-Computer copy of e-mail between petitioner and opposite party dtd.8/1/10 9) Ext.A7-Computer copy of e-mail between petitioner and opposite party Documents of the opposite party Nil By Order, Senior Superintendent. S/ | 
