Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/106

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kulbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

02 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

            CC No. :                     106 of 2018

Date of Institution:       25.06.2018

Date of Decision :        02.01.2019

 

Suresh Kumar son of Atma Ram son of Kanshi Ram r/o Street No.4, Mohalla Mahikhana, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot. Mobile No.98764-39246.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Kulbir Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of Street No. 1(R) end of street, Dashmesh Nagar, Old Cantt Road, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
2. Satwinder Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of Kameana Chowk, Near Singla Sweet House, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  OPs-Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- alongwith interest and for further directing them to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant wanted to send his son to settle abroad. OPs assured complainant that they would arrange Work Visa for his son for two years at Malaysia on payment of Rs.2 lacs. Complainant paid the amount of Rs.2 lac to him in August, 2017 and on 10.11.2017, his son reached Malaysia. Complainant sent his son to Malaysia on assurance of Ops that they would arrange work visa for him for two years, but on 13.11.2017, son of complainant returned from Malaysia as no work visa was ever accorded to him by OPs. On reaching India, both complainant and his son approached OPs and reported the entire matter of no work visa to them and also requested them to refund the amount of Rs. 2 lacs given by complainant to them, to which OPs totally refused to pay the amount. Thereafter, complainant moved an application before SSP, Faridkot through his son and there OPs admitted of having received the amount of Rs.2 lacs from complainant and also admitted their inability to arrange work visa for son of complainant. OPs admitted to refund the entire amount of Rs.2 lacs within four months, but on 16.01.2018, they deposited only Rs.30,000/-in the account of son of complainant and for remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/-, they issued cheque for partial amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, but when complainant presented this cheque for collection in his bank account at Sutlej Gramin Bank, Faridkot, bank returned the same with endorsement “Funds Insufficient” on 30.05.2018. In this way, amount of Rs.1,70,000/-of complainant is still due towards OPs. Despite several requests OPs have not refunded his amount of Rs.1,70,000/-to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.06.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                      Despite service of notice to OPs, nobody appeared on behalf of OPs either in person or through counsel. It is presumed that OPs are not interested in contesting the complaint. Therefore, vide order dated 31.07.2018, OPs were proceeded against exparte.

5                                        The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                      As there is no rebuttal from OPs side, therefore, ld counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant wanted to send his son to settle abroad and on assurance of OPs that they would arrange Work Visa for his son for two years at Malaysia on payment of Rs.2 lacs, he paid Rs.2 lac to OPs in August, 2017 and on 10.11.2017, his son reached Malaysia. Complainant sent his son to Malaysia on assurance of Ops that they would arrange work visa for him for two years, but on 13.11.2017, son of complainant returned from Malaysia as no work visa was arranged by OPs for his son and on return of his son to India,  both complainant and his son approached OPs. They reported the entire matter of no work visa arranged by OPs and also requested them to refund the amount given by complainant to them. OPs totally refused to refund the amount and then, complainant moved an application before SSP, Faridkot through his son, where OPs admitted of having received the amount of Rs.2 lacs from complainant and also admitted their inability to arrange work visa for son of complainant. OPs admitted to refund the entire amount within four months, but on 16.01.2018, they deposited only Rs.30,000/-in the account of son of complainant and issued cheque for partial amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, but it could not be encashed due to insufficient funds in the account of OPs. In this way, amount of Rs.1,70,000/-of complainant is due towards OPs which they failed to refund. All this amounts to deficiency in service and caused harassment to complainant. Prayer for accepting the complaint is made.

7                                           We have heard the ld Counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the record produced by the complainant. It is observed that case of the complainant is that on assurance of OPs that they would arrange work visa for his son, complainant paid Rs.2 lacs to OPs for sending his son to Malaysia. Complainant paid Rs. 2 lacs to OPs for this purpose and son reached Malaysia on 10.11.2017 but as no work visa was arranged by Ops for his son therefore, son of complainant came back home on 13.11.2017 and on his return, complainant requested OPs to refund his entire amount of Rs.2 lacs to which OPs refused. Complainant filed application before SSP, Faridkot for his grievance and there OPs admitted of receiving the amount of Rs.2 lacs and also showed their inability to arrange work visa for son of complainant. They promised to refund the entire amount with four months, but did not fulfil their promise. On 16.01.2018, OPs credited only Rs.30,000/-in the account of son of complainant and issued cheque for partial amount of Rs.1,20,000/-which was bounced due to insufficient funds in the account of OPs. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal from OPs side. Despite service of summons alongwith complaint and having sufficient notice of complaint against them, OPs did not contest the case and did not come present in the Forum to defend the allegations levelled by complainant upon them.

8                                     Complainant has tried to prove his pleadings with the help of documents placed on record. Copy of travel details Ex C-2 clearly proves the fact that son of complainant reached Malaysia on 11.11.2017. Ex C-3 copy of cheque dated 3.05.2018 issued by OPs for Rs.1,20,000/-also proves the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-4 is copy of memorandum issued to Punjab National Bank clearly depicts the position that cheque issued by OPs could not meet its amount due to insufficient funds in the bank account of OPs. Ex C-5 is the copy of pass book detail of son of complainant that is self explanatory and speaks itself that amount of Rs.30,000/-was credited by Ops in the account of son of complainant on 16.01.2018. Ex C-6 i.e legal notice, further exhibits the grievance of complainant which OPs have not redressed. Complainant has reiterated his grievance through his affidavit Ex C-1.

9                                            We are fully convinced with the evidence, arguments and documents placed on record by the Counsel for the complainant. There is no rebuttal from OPs side to contradict the documents placed on record by the complainant. There is no doubt that complainant hired the services of OPs for immigration to Malaysia on work visa. Copy of passbook of account of son of complainant Ex C-3 reveals that amount of Rs.30,000/-was deposited by OPs in the account of complainant. OPs failed to arrange work visa for the son of complainant and they also did not fulfil their promise of refunding the remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/-received from complainant. When the OPs failed to arrange work visa for son of complainant in Malaysia, then, they cannot retain the amount paid by complainant to them and they are liable to return the same to complainant. The act of OPs in not refunding the amount received from complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. The complainant succeeds in proving this case, so the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The Ops are ordered to refund the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant including litigation expenses. Ops are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 2.01.2019

 

                                        Member                               President

                                       (Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)