BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 17/12/2009

Date of Order : 28/07/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 656/2009

Between

 

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

The complainant is a B.Sc. Nurse by profession and was working in the Kolencherry Medical Mission Hospital. The opposite parties were conducting overseas recruiting agency at Ponekkara in the name and style of Jisa International Consultancy Service. The 1^st opposite party is the managing partner. The opposite parties offered job opportunities at Switzerland having monthly income of more than 2.5 lakhs. Believing the said offer, the complainant approached the opposite parties and they assured placement at Switzerland as a nurse within 2 years from the date of registering the application with them by remitting Rs. 50,000/- towards agents commission. The complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- on 19-06-2007 and the 1^st opposite party had issued a receipt for the same. It was told that on getting preliminary confirmation of employment, 4600 Euro was to be paid. Thereafter, the opposite parties informed that the preliminary confirmation of employment offer has been received by them. Accordingly, the complainant arranged 4600 Euro by remitting Rs. 2,52,310/- before the State Bank of Travancore, Pampakuda Branch. The 2^nd opposite party had issued a receipt for the same. Thereafter, as per the direction of the opposite parties, the complainant underwent a medical check up on 22-01-2008 and sent the format supplied by the opposite party in January 2008 itself. On enquiry, it was learnt that the opposite parties had made false representation regarding job confirmation at Switzerland and thereby extorted money from the complainant. The opposite parties collected Rs. 3,02,310/- by making false representation of arranging job visa of nurse at Switzerland. The act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 3,02,310/- along with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of collection of the amount till realization together with costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The complaint is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties. M/s. Global Employment Consultancy (GEC) Bangkok, Thailand is a necessary party to the proceedings. The relationship of the complainant and the opposite parties are only a contract for personal service which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. The opposite parties did not offer any employment abroad to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party only introduced GEC to the complainant and had accepted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as service charges for the same. The complainant deposited the money as per the instruction of the GEC in their account. In turn, GEC has issued receipt to the complainant. The opposite parties refunded Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant which was the service charge collected from her. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant, Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on her side. The 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. The counsel for the opposite parties filed argument notes. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 3,02,310/- from the opposite parties?

3. Costs of the proceedings, if any?

5. Point No. i. :- The opposite parties have a case and contend that they are not a service provider and since this Forum does not have no authority or jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. However, in their version, they have categorically admitted that they have received commission for the service rendered. The contention ipso facto annulled.

6. Point No. ii. :- According to the complainant, the opposite parties collected Rs. 3,02,310/- by making false representation of arranging job visa of nurse at Switzerland and the above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. The opposite parties contend that the GEC has directly collected the amount from the complainant and they have no liability at all to indemnify her.

7. Admittedly on 19-06-2007, the 1^st opposite party had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant evidenced by Ext. A1 receipt. Further, an amount of Rs. 2,52,310/- has been forwarded by the complainant to GEC on 31-07-2007 evident from Ext. A2 bank statement at the instance of the opposite parties. Against which GEC issued Ext. B1 receipt dated 27-08-2007 to the complainant directly with intimation to the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties contended that they have no connection with GEC, Ext. A4 preliminary confirmation employment offer issued by GEC proves otherwise, in which it is stated that the 1^st opposite party is the authorised person to GEC Associate India. No explanation is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to the above authority otherwise. In the absence of such evidence, we are only to hold that the 1^st opposite party being the authorised person in India is solely answerable. The 1^st opposite party has produced Ext. B1 receipt issued by the complainant which goes to prove that the 1^st opposite party had already refunded Rs. 50,000/- to her.

8. The opposite parties put forward another contention by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Marine Container Services South Pvt. Limited Vs. Gogo Garments (1998 (3) SCC 247), that an agent is not bound by a contract entered into by his principal. But in the instant case, the 1^st opposite party is the authorised person of GEC not their agent. So, we do not place any reliance on the contentions of the opposite parties in this text.

9. In the result, we allow the complaint and direct that the 1^st opposite party shall refund Rs. 2,52,310/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty two thousand three hundred and ten only) as well to the complainant. No order as to costs.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of July 2011.