FA.No.512/2005 against CD.No.1135/2000 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad.

Between-

Sri Lakshmaiah, S/o.Subrahmanyam,

Age- 60 yrs. Occ- Business,

R/o.Flat No.101 B, 5-8-42, Fathe Sultan Lane,

Nampally, Hyderabad.

…Appellant/O.P.No.3.

And

1.Mr.Md.Vaseem, S/o.Md.Ibrahim,

   Aged about 32 years, Occ- Student,

   H.No.9-9-74, Ramalayam Street,

   Khammam,

…R.1/Complainant.

2.M/s.Online Software Services, 12-13-1275,

   1^st Floor, Sharafi Complex, Moulali Road,

   Tarnaka, Hyderabad – 17

   Rep. By its Managing Director, Sri S.V.S.Krishna Prasad.

3.Smt.S.Padma, W/o. S.V.S.Krishna Prasad,

   Aged about 36 years, Occ- Representative of Online Software Services,

   C/o.Flat No.101, B, 5-8-42, Fathe-Sulthan Lane, Nampally,

   Hyderabad.

4.M/s.Standard Solutions Integrated Pvt. Ltd.

   12-13-1275, 1^st Floor, Sharafi Complex, Moulali Road,

   Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

(R.2 to R.4 are not necessary parties to this appeal)

…R.2 to R.4/O.Ps.1,2 and 4.

Counsel for the Appellant        -      Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao.

Counsel for the Respondents  -       Served through paper publication.     

QUORUM- THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

-------

            Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.        

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the 3^rd opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad dated 24.05.2004 in CD.No.1135/2000 directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 to refund Rs.1,05,000/- together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he was an engineering graduate.  The first opposite party, M/s.Online Software Services represented by its Managing Director, Sri SVS Krishna Prasad, issued an advertisement in Deccan Chronicle on 08.05.1997 stating that “it would present VISA course offer for Engineering/MCA/M.Sc.(CS) graduates, 100 percent job guarantee, boarding and lodging facilities available, H-1 Visa processing for USA by giving last date for registration as 09.05.1997 and aptitude test as 11.05.1997” by giving address as 12-13-1275, 1^st Floor, Sharafi Complex, Moula-Ali Road, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.  Accordingly, he paid Rs.10,000/- on 15.05.1997, Rs.15,000/- on 25.06.1997, Rs.72,000/- and Rs.6,000/- on 10.11.1997 totalling to Rs.1,05,000/-.  Later he came to know that the application sent for VISA by the 1^st opposite party was bogus, and it was rejected by the Consulate General, Chennai.  On a complaint by him, 1^st opposite party, the Managing Director SVS Krishna Prasad was taken to Tarnaka Police Station by police.  3^rd opposite party, the appellant, his father in law gave an undertaking to clear the amount on that opposite party No.1 was let off.  Late he came to know that the Managing Director of 1^st opposite party, Mr.Krishna Prasad and his wife, 2^nd opposite party, a director had shifted their residence to USA.  The complainant got issued legal notices to opposite parties 1 to 4, which were not served.   Therefore, he filed the complaint seeking refund of Rs.1,05,000/- paid by him with interest besides compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs and costs.

3.         Opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 did not choose to contest despite steps being taken against them.  Since the complainant himself did not take steps against O.P.4, the complaint was dismissed against it

4.         The complainant filed evidence affidavit and documents, Exs.A.1 to A.15.  After considering the evidence placed on record, the District Forum directed opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 to refund Rs.1,05,000/- to the complainant with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.3 preferred this appeal contending that he has nothing to do with the transactions between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.  He never undertook to pay any amount on behalf of Krishna Prasad.  He did not receive any notice from the complainant.  Therefore, he prayed that the appeal against him be allowed.

6.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the amounts awarded by the District Forum?

7.         It is an undisputed fact that the 1^st opposite party, the son in law of the appellant, floated an Online Software Services promising to get Visa and job in USA, for which he sought Rs.1,05,000/- through an advertisement published in Deccan Chronicle, marked as Ex.A.1.  Pursuant to the said publication, the complainant had admittedly paid Rs,1,05,000/-, evidenced under Exs.A.2, A.4 and A.7.  Later he came to learn through Ex.A.11 letter that it was a bogus company and his Visa was rejected.  Therefore, he came up with this complaint.

8.         The record discloses that a registered notice Ex.A.13 dt.19.02.2000 was issued to the appellant alleging that when the 1^st respondent, his son in law was arrested and brought to Tarnaka Police Station, he undertook to pay the amount and on that he was released.  The fact that a notice was sent to him is evidenced by the postal receipts Ex.A.14.  The appellant did not dispute the address noted on it   Necessarily a presumption could be drawn that a registered notice was sent to the appellant and the same was received by him, unless a contrary evidence is placed before the District Forum (vide Sec.114 (f) of Indian Evidence Act) 

9.         When a notice was issued to the appellant categorically stating that he undertook to pay the amount on behalf of his son in law, the 1^st respondent, necessarily it can be said that he was also liable.  This is an oral agreement and the consideration is to release his son in law.   He having given undertaking to pay the amount, he cannot go back.  Undoubtedly there is a nexus not only by way of relationship but also by way of an oral agreement between the 1^st respondent and the appellant for discharging the amount.  When the facts were not disputed or un-controverted it must be held that they were proved.

10.       This is an unfortunate case where the complainant, a student, was duped.  The appellant is no other than the father in law of the Managing Director.  It is not in dispute that the Managing Director is no longer available and obviously shifted to USA.  His father in law who had infact promised to discharge the liability now intend to repudiate the liability by stating that he never gave such an undertaking.  If that were to be a fact, he could have summoned the record from the police station.  He could not substantiate that he had nothing to do with his son in law.

11.       We have gone through the entire documentary evidence and we are of the opinion that the appellant was also liable along with his son in law, the second  respondent herein and his daughter, R.3, she being a director.  We do not see any merits in this appeal.

12.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

Dt-24.06.2008.

Vvr.