This appeal by Opposite party- The Manager, Canadian 4UR Immigration service is directed against the order dated 15.7.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.863 of 2008 filed by respondent (complainant) was allowed in the following terms ; “The OP has refunded to the Complainant only a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- out of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received by them. They are, therefore, liable to refund the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. The Complainant has also spent Rs.24,900/- on his air fare, but it all went waste due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP. The OP would be liable to pay back the amount to the Complainant. The Complainant has suffered mentally and physically in so far as he was detained and deported and his dreams of getting employment in the said country were dashed. It certainly caused him mental, as well as physical harassment, for which also the OP shall pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The complaint is, therefore, allowed and the OP is directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- + Rs.24,900/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs. 59,900/-, along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they would be liable to pay the said amount along with penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.2.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the Complainant. ” 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ; The complainant approached the OP for providing him the work permit to Singapore and paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards fee after which he was told by OP that he would have to reach Singapore on tourist visa and after reaching there, the work visa would be given to him by their agent i.e. Raveena Café Pte Ltd. and was asked to sign Form No. 14 for visa. The ticket was arranged by OP for which he had paid Rs.24,900/- to them. He reached Singapore on 14.9.2008 but no one from aforesaid Raveena Café Pte Ltd. approached him, nor the work permit was provided. In these circumstances, the complainant was kept in custody by the airport authorities at Singapore for one night and sent back on the very next day i.e. 15.9.2008. On coming back to India, he approached the OP and raised protest upon which an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was refunded to him with the assurance that the balance amount alongwith ticket expenses and compensation for harassment would be paid within a few days. He also served a legal notice upon OP seeking refund of balance amount of Rs.10,000/-, ticket expenses of Rs.24900/- and compensation of Rs.one lac for harassment but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 4. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the complainant approached them and disclosed that he was an expert cook and wanted to settle abroad upon which he was told that a company by the name of Ravina Café Pvt. Ltd. based in Singapore required some cooks on urgent basis. He was further told in clear and unambiguous terms that he would be sent on visitor visa to Singapore and upon reaching Singapore, he was to contact the Director of Ravina Café Pvt. Ltd. and as per the requirement of the Singapore Government, the said company was to conduct a ‘Trade Test’ before confirming the complainant. He was also imparted basic information in regard to immigration provisions including the “do’s and dont’s” and thereafter only he signed the form No.14. According to OP, the complainant could not have been illegally detained in the custody by Airport Authorities for one night and deported back unless and until he contravened the rules and regulations of the Singapore Government or indulged in some prohibited activity. It has been pleaded that the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was refunded to the brother of the complainant as full and final settlement towards the claim and it was told to the complainant that the travel expenses were to be borne by him and the same would be non-refundable. It was pleaded that that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and material brought on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved , opposite party - The Manager, Canadian 4UR immigration service has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of OP is that here in the instant case the District Forum has erred by passing the impugned order against the opposite party who is infact an employee of the firm which had accepted the amount from the complainant. Thus, in this case the firm of which the Manager was an employee, was a necessary party to be impleaded, and in the absence of that firm, the complaint should have been dismissed. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on the following authorities ; (i) Namita Nigam Vs Janta Travel SC & Natinal Commission Consumer Law cases(1996-2005)337 (ii) Sehgal Knitwears Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd & ors II(2006)CPJ 314 (NC) At the fag end of his arguments, the learned counsel for OP submitted that in fact a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was ultimately refunded to the complainant in full and final settlement of the matter in dispute, so, now he is not entitled to any relief. On the other hand, the learned counsel for complainant has repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of OP. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid twofold arguments put forth on behalf of OP and found the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as at the first place, in such like complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applicable. Moreover, the complaint was not filed against the OP in his personal capacity, rather the same was filed against the manager who had been accepting the money on behalf of the firm named as Canadian 4UR Immigration Service. The aforesaid firm is headed by its manager. We have also gone through the facts of the above said rulings and find that the facts contained therein are quite variance from the facts of the case in hand. Thus, no benefit can be derived by OP from the observations made therein by their lordships of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission. 8. Now adverting to the last point of arguments raised on behalf of OP. In fact, it is an admitted case of OP in his written statement that the complainant who was an expert cook wanted to go abroad for work and for that work permit was ultimately to be provided to him by OP but admittedly he was sent on visitor visa meant for a tourist. However, he was asked to contact there at Singapore the Director of Ravina Café Pvt. Ltd. From this plea taken in the written statement by OP, it is apparent that it was OP who was using unfair trade practice for sending the innocent gullible and rustic persons like complainant for running his business. As is evident from the facts and material brought on record complainant had approached OP for arranging the work permit for him at Singapore and not for sending him on a tourist visa. 9. In these given facts and circumstances, we find nothing wrong in the impugned order whereby complainant has been granted only Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment besides refund of actual amounts spent by him (complainant) for reaching only at the airport of Singapore from where he was deported back on the next morning. 10. In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.2500/-. Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
| | MAJ GEN S.P.KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | |
