D.O.F:10/10/2023
D.O.O:11/09/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.302/2023
Dated this, the 11th day of September 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Roshit.P, aged 32 years,
S/o P Raghu,
R/at Porkalam, Anandasramam P.O,
Bellur, Hosdurg Taluk,
Kasaragod District- 671531. : Complainant
(Adv: Shajidkammadam)
And
M/s Bhuvaneshwari Jobs,
Having registered Office at
Anaswara Building,
Nr. Old Bus stand, Kanhangad,
Kasaragod District,
Rep by authorized Person. : Opposite Party
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complainants case is that he was in search of a job in foreign countries. He heard the advertisement by opposite party about jobs of aircraft cleaner in Canada, such job offer in Canada “advertised primarily”. The advertisement published in social media platforms. The complainant applied through the Opposite Party in its Kanhangad Office. The Opposite Party promised to arrange jobs as Aircraft clear with a salary of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month with permanent residency. The Opposite Party collected Rs. 50,000/- and executed an agreement offer letter dated 15/12/2022 is issued.
Thereafter Opposite party collected another Rs. 1,50,000/- from complainant on 26/12/2022 for Visa processing and two agreements executed.
But Opposite party informed that they will provide jobs in another filed due to reported problem in aircraft field. Though complainant waited for long periods, Opposite party failed to arrange the visa as promised. The act of Opposite party causing mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant seeking relief of compensation of Rupees Four Lakhs and cost of litigation.
Though notice of Opposite party duly served failed to appear before the commission. Name of Opposite party called, absent set exparte.
The complainant documents Ext A1 to A3 documents marked from his side. Ext A1 and A2 agreements, and Ext A3 is offer letter.
Following points arised for consideration in this case:
- Whether complaint proved the entrustment of money to opposite party for the service as pleaded by him, or accepted the offer of employment?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service of the Opposite party and whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs?
The case of complainant is that complainant and Opposite party entered in to an agreement for job in Canada. The complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to Opposite party. Ext A1 produced by complainant is in the name of one Vijin.K. It shows Opposite party collected Rs. 50,000/- from Vijin in case of failure to fulfill the commitment.
The complainant is one Rashid. In complaint para 3 showed initial Rs. 50,000/- paid by complainant to opposite party, document is just otherwise date of payment. Ext A1 dated 13/04/2022. Ext A2 is agreement, it is not clear whether it is original as copy. It shows Roshit number not passport number, Ext A2 is dated 26/12/2022, Ext A3 is dated 15/12/2022.
Roshit the complainant did not accept the offer letter Ext A3 signature space left bank. Unless offer letter is accepted there is no question of any further payment to the opposite party. Hence there is no evidence low amount paid, either in cash not or in cheque.
Even though opposite party is set exparte the complainant is expected to prove the case by acceptable evidence.
Though agreement is produced the same is not proved as per mandate of law, not even filed proof affidavit.
Now a day’s technology has advanced to such an extent that the genuinely of claim of processing Visa to Canada by opposite party, authenticity of Ext A3 offer can be checked and verified.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, complainant failed to prove him case he is not entitled to any relief in the case.
In the result complaint dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1 & A2- Copy of the agreement
A3- Copy of the offer letter
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
