PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                        By this order, we are disposing of the following 17 consumer complaints including the present one as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases:-

2.                     For the purpose of disposal of these complaints, the facts are gathered from C.C.No.1301/2009-Tarundeep Singh Versus Fortune Abroad Services (P) Ltd.

3.                     Sh.Tarundeep Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :-

i)                    Refund a sum of Rs.63,000/- deposited on account of work permit in New Zealand.

ii)                   To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

iii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                     In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was interested in settling at New Zealand and wanted a job there. So he visited the office of OP. OP explained to him the details about the procedure to be followed for getting the work permit.  The complainant was assured that he would get a job with salary @ 18-20 New Zealand dollars per hour with free accommodation. According to the complainant, OP demanded a sum of Rs.5.50 lacs for the services rendered by it for getting the job to the complainant. It has further been pleaded that the OP claimed that Fletcher Constructions and City Hospital Auckland has authorized it to recruit persons on its behalf. OP also handed over the copies of the agreements (Annexures C-2 and C-3) to him. Thereafter, at the asking of OP, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.63000/- to the OP. The complainant was told that a sum of Rs.13,000/- would be required for Work Permit Form Fee and the remaining Rs.50,000/- would be required for other formalities. The complainant was assured that he would get the job in the month of January 2009 with a contract of three years.  According to the complainant, OP issued confirmation letter (Annexure C-5) regarding the jobs in the Fletcher Constructions and City Hospital Auckland and also issued a list of 509 candidates prepared by it.   OP told the complainant that some persons from Fletcher Co. would visit India on 14.02.2009  to provide the working VISA . According to the complainant, no person visited India as assured by OP.  The complainant also came to know that OP also received money from some other persons on the basis of study VISA and work permit for Canada about which one FIR No.184 dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure C-8) was registered. It has further been pleaded that OP has duped a number of persons by collecting money in the manner mentioned above. OP has failed to secure the job for the complainant and has also failed to refund the amount.  According to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the relief mentioned above.

5.                     All the other complaints enumerated above have almost similar facts and grievances. Hence the cause of action for all is the same.

6.                     In the written statement filed by OP, it has been pleaded that OP was providing consultancy for immigration for work permit of Canada only for the past three years. It has been denied that OP was running the business of sending persons to New Zealand. According to the OP, the complainant never approached it for work permit for New Zealand or that the complainant was ever assured about the job with salary at New Zealand @ 18-20 dollars per hour. It has further been denied that the complainant ever deposited any amount with OP in the month of November 2008 or any other time. It has been denied that the complainant was assured that he would get a job in the month of January 2009. According to OP, they never circulated any letter to the complainant to the effect that some formalities were pending in the Ministry of Labour at New Delhi. It has been denied that OP collected any money from the complainant in the month of November-December 2008 for work permit for New Zealand, as they had never dealt with consultancy of work permit for New Zealand and the complainant had no receipt/copies of cheque/draft/agreement if any issued by the OP. The registration of FIR No.184 has been admitted but it has been submitted that the same has been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 8.9.2009. All other pleadings of the complainant are vehemently denied. According to OPs, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. In these circumstances, according to OP, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.                     Almost similar facts have been pleaded in the replies filed in other cases.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

9.                     The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant is that OP had cheated the complainant intentionally in order to grab the money. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, OP told the complainant that they had a contract with Fletcher Company and they have been authorised to recruit persons on their behalf. OP also gave him the copies of the recruitment contract and retainer agreement (Annexure C-2 and C-3) respectively. Thereafter they took a sum of Rs.63000/- from the complainant. The complainant was told that a sum of Rs.13,000/- was required for “‘work permit form fee” and remaining Rs.50000/- for other formalities.  It has further been pleaded that OP did not issue any receipt on the pretext that the formalities regarding clearance from Ministry of Labour, New Delhi were still pending and receipt would be issued after the formalities are completed.

10.                   We have gone through Annexures C-2 and  C-3 i.e. the recruitment contract and the retainer agreement. From the perusal of these documents, it is not clear as to who are the signatories to the contract. Name and address of one of the parties has been scored off. It is not legible. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP had handed over Annexures C-2 and C-3 in the same condition. If it is so the complainant should have brought out the cuttings to the notice of OP and should have objected to it there and then. He should not have accepted the documents which were tampered with. In such circumstances, no prudent person would have paid the money.   So from these documents, it is not proved that OP had signed any contract with Fletcher Company for recruiting persons on its behalf. For the sake of argument, even if it is admitted that the documents were given as such, the complainant should not have accepted the oral assurances of the OP especially keeping in view the conduct of the OP in giving such tampered documents to him. Furthermore, no receipt regarding the payment of the amount has been placed on record. The complainant has also failed to place on record any other proof regarding payment of Rs.63000/-. The complainant has annexed work permit assistance form but this document is completely blank.  So it cannot be proved that the said document pertains to the complainant. The list of candidates who applied for work permit for New Zealand (Annexure C-5) is also not an authentic document as this list also does not bear the signatures of any one.  Similarly, the documents (Annexures C-6, C-7, C-10 to C-10) do not bear the signatures of any one. Therefore, the said documents cannot be relied upon. Annexure C-8 is the copy of the F.I.R. which does not pertain to the present complaint and further more the said F.I.R. has already been quashed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. So the complainant has failed to prove any of the averments made in the complaint.

11.                   Almost the evidence in each case is similar.
So in the other cases also, the complainants have failed to prove any averments made in the complaint.

12.                   In view of the above findings, the complainants have failed to make out any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against OP.  Hence, all the complaints are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

13.                   Certified copy of this order be communicated to all the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17.05.2010

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

cm

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER