BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Navjot Singh, s/o Surjit Singh, r/o VPO Goslan, Distt. Ludhiana (Pb.)

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

M/s Fortune Abroad Services (P) Ltd, SCO No.83, Top Floor, Sector 40, Chandigarh through its Directors Kanwar Narinder Singh and G.S. Uppal

                                  ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH. ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                   PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL                   MEMBER

                DR. (MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER

Argued by: None for complainant.

Sh. Hitesh Verma, Adv. for OP.

PER DR. (MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

JAGROO Succinctly put, the complainant, being interested in going abroad to New Zealand on the basis of work permit, contacted the OP after going through the advertisement issued by them. The OP explained to him the detailed programme as to how they would charge and the procedure to get him the work permit in the New Zealand.  He was assured that he would get the job with salary @ 18-20 New Zealand dollars per hour with free accommodation for which the OP would charge Rs.5.50 lacs and he was told to deposit Rs.1.13 lac i.e. Rs. 13,000/- as Work Permit Form Fee and remaining Rs.1,00,000/- for other formalities, which he deposited in the month of November 2008 and he was told that he would get the job in the month of January 2009 with three years contract but no receipt was issued for the same by the OP to the complainant, on the ground that, they cannot issue the receipt until and unless the final approval from the Labour Department of New Zealand is received. The OP in anticipation of getting VISA for the complainant also circulated a confirmation letter regarding jobs in the Fletcher Construction Company and City Hospital in Auckland.  In the month of January, 2009 the OP handed over a letter showing that the persons from Fletcher Co. were coming to India on 14.02.2009 to provide information regarding the working VISA but no one had visited India as assured by the OP.  He also came to know that the 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 was registered in which the OP applied for regular bail relying upon the licence issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Overseas (Indian Affairs) having validity from  3.2.2009 to 2.11.2013 alongwith limit of workers to be recruited upto 300, whereas in his case the money was collected between the month of Nov.-Dec. 2008 which was illegal. When the complainant approached the OP for refund he was refused openly. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OP submitted that they were only 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 abroad or that the complainant ever approached the OP for work permit of New Zealand or any other country or that the complainant was ever assured about the job with salary @ 18-20 New Zealand dollars per hour or that the complainant ever deposited any amount in the office of the OP in the month of November 2008 or any other time or that the complainant was assured that he would get job in the month of January 2009 or that the OP ever prepared the list of 509 candidates/applicants or that the OP ever circulated any letter to the complainant if some formalities were pending in the Ministry of Labour at New Delhi. They never collected any money from the complainant in the month of November-December 2008 for work permit of 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. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record. 

5.             It is the case of the complainant that a sum of Rs.1.13 lac was paid by him to the OP in November, 2008 for a job in New Zealand.  The submission of the complainant is not supported by any type of document/receipt to show as to where from the said payment was obtained/withdrawn by the complainant and through which mode the said payment was made to the OP and in whose presence. The complainant also submitted that after making the said payment to the OP, it was assured by the OP that he would be sent to New Zealand and would get the job in the month of January, 2009 with a contract of 3 years. This declaration of the complainant is also oral and no written agreement between the parties has been placed on record by the complainant. Annexure C-5, which is the detailed list of candidates who applied for work permit of New Zealand, is also not proved to have been issued by the OP as it does not bear the signatures of any of its officials.  All the submissions of the complainant have been denied by the OP. In the absence of any other evidence, the bald statement of the complainant is beyond truth.

6.             The complainant has placed on record the FIR Annexure C-7, which was registered against the OP. The mere FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be taken as a proof to hold that the complainant had paid any such amount to the OP or that the OP had agreed to send him abroad. The complainant has also attached the letters Annexure C-9 to C-11, which were sent to Davinder Singh, Gurwinder Singh Dhillon and Sakkater Singh but these letters do not relate to the present complaint and therefore are not relevant for the purpose of the complaint in hand and hence these are of no consequence.

7.             We have gone through the record placed on file and it is found that except the oral assertions of the complainant, in totality, the complainant has not been able to produce any evidence in support of his contentions against the OP.  

8.             In view of the above discussion and findings, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations against the OP, due to lack of evidence in totality.  There is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  Thereafter file be consigned to records.