BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE

                                                                Dated this the   15^th June 2009

COMPLAINT NO.26/2009

(Admitted on 2.3.2009)

PRESENT: 

1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                             2.Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member

BETWEEN:

Sri.N.Balachandra Rai,

So Late S.Sheenappa Rai,

Aged about 47 years,

Rat 6 72 4, Navoor Mannor,

Kavoor Post,

Mangalore 575 015.                       …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate: Sri Udayananda.A)

          VERSUS

1) Jyothsna Ramesh,

    AUM Tours and Travels Links,

    306, First Floor,

   B.C.C.S. Building,

   First Main Road, Chamarajpet,

   Opposite Prakash Cafe,

   Bangalore 560 018.

2) Ravi Teja,

   Managing Director,

   R.T. Out Sourcing,

   #31/1, 2^nd Floor,

   Nanda Arcade,

   Vani Vilas Road,

   Basavanagudi,

   Bangalore-560 004.      ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT:

1.       The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The Complainant is a resident of Mangalore and also MBA Degree holder along with Law Degree. After completion of the education he was searching for a job in foreign country equivalent to his qualification.  It is submitted that the Opposite Parties are dealing with the business of tours and travels as well as out sourcing of qualified Indian graduates to foreign countries by providing VISA facilities.  As per the advertisements given by the Opposite Parties, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to secure an employment VISA to United Kingdom under the Highly Skilled Migrant Program within a short period.  Opposite Parties have agreed to provide employment VISA to the Complainant to United Kingdom on payment of their service charges.  Believing the words of the Opposite Parties Complainant had paid in all Rs.4,92,000/- to secure the employment VISA and other necessary expenses as demanded by the Opposite Parties.  Inspite of paying so much of amount on account of the deliberate manipulations made by the Opposite Parties in submitting certain documents to the home office, U.K., the application seeking employment by the Complainant was refused.  The Opposite Party No.2 inspite of the refusal made the Complainant to believe that he will set right the problem by filing review petition.  But till this date the Opposite Parties could not set right the problem and the amount paid by the Complainant was not refunded.  It is contended that, the Opposite Parties did not provide the agreed service to the Complainant and even after their failure to arrange the  employment visa they did not refund the amount received from the Complainant and contended that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency and filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.4,92,000/- towards the service charges, VISA expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- towards the processing charges and Traveling expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- claimed as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice issued by the Forum to the Opposite Parties returned as left, thereafter the Complainant taken steps by paper publication in ‘Hosadigantha of Bangalore Edition. Despite the Opposite Parties were not bothered to appear before the Forum till this date. Hence both the Opposite Parties proceeded exparte in this case.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri N.Balachandra Rai (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered and  Ex C1 to C8 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.  Opposite Parties  are exparte led no evidence.  

            We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record.  We answer the points are as follows:        

          Point No.(i): Affirmative.

          Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.      

REASONS

5.  Points No. (i):

In the present case, the part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore the complaint is maintainable and the Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point No.(ii) to (iv):-

In order to substantiate issue No.(ii) the Complainant produced Ex.C1 to C8 before this Fora.  The Ex.C1 is the Original Agreement entered between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Parties undertaken to issue a employment VISA at the cost of Rs.3,300/- £ @ the rate of Rs.90, this amount will be valid until the Home Office approval letter is issued. Further Ex.C2 is the receipt dated 26.12.2007 issued by the Opposite Party No.2 reveals that the Complainant paid Rs.2,97,000/- towards UK HSMP Application and final settlement of VISA.  Ex.C3 is the one more receipt dated 26.12.2007 issued for Rs.24,000/- towards the professional fee and Ex. C4 receipt dated 26.12.2007 for Rs.36,000/- DD amount to U.K (Home office).  Ex. C5 is one more receipt dated 26.12.2007 towards the Registration/Assessment charges for Rs.2,500/- issued by the Opposite Party and Ex.C6 is the receipt issued by the Corporation Bank having deposited Rs.25,000/- in the name of Opposite Party No.1. Ex. C7 is the proof of funds issued by the General Manager, Corporation Bank and Ex.C8 is the Account Statement of the Complainant.

From the above documents as well as the evidence by way of affidavit filed by the Complainant proved that, the Opposite Parties are agreed to secure an employment VISA to United Kingdom and entered into an agreement as per Ex.C1 and received Rs.4,92,000/- from the Complainant.  And also it is proved that in spite of taking so much of amount from the Complainant was not able to get employment VISA as desired by the Complainant.  Under such circumstances, the Opposite Party ought to have refunded the amount to the Complainant.  In the present case, it appears on record that after filing the complaint this Forum was issued version notice to both the parties and the said notices returned as left in the said address given by the Complainant and thereafter, the Complainant taken a steps by paper publication in Bangalore Edition and the paper publication was filed before this Fora.  Despite of serving version notice the Opposite Parties by publication not bothered to appear nor contradict the evidence of the Complainant till this date.  The opportunity was given to the Opposite Parties to contest the case and they ought to have taken the opportunity and contradict the evidence of the Complainant.  We have noticed that the Opposite Parties not bothered to contest the case nor rebut the evidence of the Complainant hence it requires no further proof.  In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that, the oral and the documentary evidence proved that the Opposite Parties inspite of taking service charges as well as other charges from the Complainant failed to give a proper service nor they failed to refund the amount till this date amounts to deficiency in service.  Under the above circumstances, we hereby direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.4,92,000/- along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of agreement i.e. 26.12.2007 till the date of payment.  And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses.

However, the interest as well as compensation both cannot be allowed the interest is always inclusive of compensation. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are hereby directed to pay to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.4,92,000/- along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of agreement i.e. 26.12.2007 till the date of payment.  And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the  15^th day of June 2009.)

        PRESIDENT                         MEMBER

(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)       (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)

APPENDIX

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri N.Balachandra Rai.

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 26.12.2007: Original Agreement

Ex C2 – 26.12.2007 : Receipt for Rs.2,97,000/-

Ex C3 – 26.12.2007: Receipt Rs.24,000/- towards

            the professional fee.

Ex C4 –26.12.2007:Receipt for Rs.36,000/- DD amount

            to U.K ( Home office)

ExC5–26.12.2007: Receipt towards the Registration/

          Assessment charges for Rs.2,500/- issued

          by the Opposite Party.

Ex C6 – Receipt issued by the Corporation Bank having

            deposited Rs.25,000/- in the name of

            Opposite Party No.1

Ex C7 – The proof of funds issued by the General Manager,

           Corporation Bank

Ex C8 – Account statement of the Complainant.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1 –

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:       

- NIL -

Dated:15.6.2009                              PRESIDENT