KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO: 591/2006
JUDGMENT DATED: 18-12-2010
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
M/s Koyas International,
Koyas Tower, Mambra, : APPELLANT
Angamaly-680 308.
(By Adv.Sri.Roy Varghese)
Vs.
Kunjumol Raveendran,
Vellelil, Kakkoor.P.O, : RESPONDENT
Koothattukulam-686 662.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.180/2006 dated:11/7/2006. The appellant is the 1st opposite party prefers this appeal under the order of the Forum below which directed the 1st opposite party to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% from 7/12/2004 till the refund is made. It also directed the opposite party to return the passport to the complainant. Incase he fails to do so, he shall pay the complainant Rs.5000/- for pertaining a duplicate of the same. It also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
2. In short, the complainant paid the opposite party Rs.30,000/- towards first instalment for visa to avail a job as a hotel cook for her son. The opposite party issued a fake visa. Instead of issuing a job visa, the visa issued was visiting visa. Hence alleging deficiency of service of Rs.30,000/- and compensation has been claimed. Apart from this there is a prayer to direct the opposite party to return the passport of the complainant’s son. The appellant and the superintendent of police Ernakulam rural were also cited as necessary parties as OP1 and 2 respectively. Later the 2nd opposite party was deleted from the complaint. Then the 1st opposite party contended their version that allegation regarding issual of fake job visa for cooks in a hotel was false. The visa dated:1/12/2004 was obtained and the complainant’s son had undergone medical examination. The opposite party received the amount only after arranging visa. Usually visa for a 2 or 3 months period is issued from Kuwait and the meantime the applicant has to get the passport stamped with visa from Kuwait Embassy. In the visiting visa the trade details would not be furnished. The passport and visa are with police and obtained the same on a complaint filed by the complainant before them. The complainant has to pay the balance amount and there is no deficiency of service.
3. The complainant filed a proof affidavit, and he was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 are the documents marked from the side of the opposite party he did not adduce any oral evidence and they marked their documents as Exts.B1 to B4.
4. The Forum below heard both sides and answered all the points raised in the complaint and found that the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and cost and directed them to return the passport to the opposite party accordingly.
5. This order was challenged by the opposite party/appellant. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, learned counsels for both sides appeared and argued their respective cases vehemently. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order of the Forum below is arbitrarily, illegal and unjust. He contended that the Forum below did not appreciate the documentary evidence adduced by the appellants. The finding of the Forum below that the appellant has not chosen to give any oral evidence against the case of the 1st respondent is totally irrelevant especially in view of the fact that 1st respondent herself failed to prove her case. The appellant had proved his case by way of documentary evidence which was totally discarded by the Forum below. He prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the appeal.
6. The counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the documentary evidence adduced by the respondent is more than enough to prove that opposite party/appellant committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. He argued for dismissal of the appeal with cost and to confirm the impugned order passed by the Forum below. This Commission heard in detail both parties and perused the entire case records and examined, argument notes and appeal memorandum filed by the appellant and found that the document Ext.B3 which was produced by the appellant is a model paper of visiting visa. But Ext.B1 document contains some information stated to have been given by the petitioner’s son for getting the visa. The complainant would contend that the details contained in Ext.B1 document was not provided by the complainant or her son. He also submitted that the religion of the complainant’s son has been written as Christian in the B1 document instead of Hindu. On another interesting aspect that B1 document does not contained the signature of either the complainant or her son had no way related with this dispute. Their main allegation that Ext.B1 document is not at all reliable and the details are incorrect. A fact was admitted that Rs.30,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party as per Ext.A1 receipt. In toto we are not seeing any difference of opinion about the finding of the Forum below that the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party and is liable to pay compensation for that as per the Consumer Protection Act. We are seeing that there is no apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. It is strictly in accordance with law. It is legally sustainable. The counsel for the appellant submitted that a DD of Rs.90,275/- deposited before this commission at the time of admission of the appeal by the appellant. Counsel for the respondent submitted that this amount may be ordered to be released to the respondent/complainant into the amount of compensation. This submission is allowed, the respondent/complainant is entitled to get deposit amount of Rs.90,275/- which amount deposited before this Commission by the appellant. The respondent/complainant is entitled to get the balance amount from the appellant. The counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the passport was already received by the respondent/complainant from the police. In this circumstance we disposed this appeal with above modification of the impugned order passed by the Forum below. All other findings of the Forum below is hereby confirmed.
In the result, this appeal is disposed of accordingly with above modifications. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective cost. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VL.
