BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No: 359/2003 Filed on 06..09..2003<br /> Dated :15..07..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> Sabeel Subair, Poovakadu Veedu, Kappil (P.O.), Edava, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By Adv. Sri.D. Sathyapal)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> Managing Director, Suhail Man Power Consultants, Mas Tower, Allakulangara, Near Sub Jail, Thiruvananthapuram – 9.<br /> (By Adv. Shri.J. Solomon)<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 20..06..2008, the Forum on 15..07..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The facts of the case as per the complainant is as follows:<br /> <br /> The opposite party had promised the complainant, to make him enter as a security in Kuwait within a month. As air ticket cost they demanded Rs.15,000/-. Believing the opposite party, the complainant gave the amount to opposite party, and received a receipt dated 28..02..2003. Afterwards, the opposite party informed the complainant that the visa was ready, and asked for his original passport. Accordingly, the complainant gave his passport (No.B-2377605) to the opposite party. Even after a month, there was no response from the opposite party, hence the complainant approached them to return the amount be paid along with his passport or to give him the air ticket as promised. Several attempts were made for the same, but in vain.<br /> 2. As per the version filed by the opposite party, the opposite party has accepted the amount Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. The air ticket was made ready for the complainant, but even after informing the complainant, he was not ready to use the ticket or to go abroad. Accordingly, the opposite party paid back an amount of Rs.14,000/- and the passport to opposite party. The complainant demanded the amount of Rs.1,000/- also from opposite party, but that was taken as service charge by the opposite party and they denied to pay that amount.<br /> <br /> 3. In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 3 documents.<br /> <br /> 4. Points to be considered:<br /> (i) Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?<br /> <br /> (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?<br /> 5. Points (i) & (ii): The documents produced by the complainant, are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext.P1 is the receipt for Rs.15,000/- issued by the opposite party on 28..02..2003 to the complainant. Ext.P2 is a paper cutting showing the advertisement of opposite party. Ext. P3 is the complete paper page from Malayala Manorama dated 25..11..2004 with the opposite party's advertisement.<br /> <br /> 6. Submission by the complainant is that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party and the opposite party had promised a job as security in Kuwait to complainant within a month. Ext.P1 proves this, also the opposite party has admitted the same. The opposite party's argument that, air tickets were made ready for the complainant and an amount of Rs.14,000/- was paid back to complainant, when the complainant was not willing to go abroad, has no proofs. The opposite party has also collected the complainant's original passport.<br /> <br /> 7. Sufficient proofs were produced by the complainant, proving his allegations against the opposite party. Since, there is no proof for the refunding of Rs.14,000/- by opposite party to complainant, the opposite party's argument on that is found false. The opposite party has evidently showed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with interest 9% thereon from 28..02..2003 till realisation and return the original passport to the complainant and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the complaint. Time of compliance will be two months. Hence the complaint allowed.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of July, 2008.<br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 359/2003 <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I. Complainant's witness: NIL<br /> <br /> II. Complainant's documents:<br /> <br /> P1 : Original cash receipt with Reg.No.A.974/03 dated 28..02..2003 for Rs.15,000/-.<br /> <br /> P2 : Original advertisement of Suhail enterprises<br /> <br /> P3 : Advertisement published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 25th November 2004.<br /> <br /> III.Opposite party's witness: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> IV.Opposite party's documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />