PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
The Complainant is originally from Jharkhand State and presently residing at Anand Nagar, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai–49. Opposite Party No.2 is a Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 M/s. Indus Cruising and Shipping. Opposite Party No.3 is a Doctor by profession.
2) It is the case of the Complainant that in the month of Feb., 2008, while he was searching the internet he came across a job offer for the post of Photographer with the Cruise Lines. The said offer was attractive. So the Complainant applied on line for the said job. After few months he received a call from Opposite Party No.1 & 2 that he has been selected for an interview. By letter dtd.05/11/08, the Complainant was offered monthly salary of $ 1000 by Carnival Cruise Lines, Miami. The Complainant produced copy of the said offer letter alongwith Exh. ‘C-1’.
3) It is submitted on 08/11/2008, the Complainant went for an interview and accordingly, he was selected for the said job. After selection the Complainant was handed over on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 the offer letter as well as prospectus of his schedule till departure to USA. The said prospectus clearly prescribes that the medical has to be done before Visa. It was also categorically cleared that the Complainant’s employment will commence in about 3 to 4 months from the date of said letter. The Complainant has produced copy of prospectus of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 marked at Exh.‘C-2’.
4) According to the Complainant, he received letter dtd.14/11/08 issued by Opposite Party No.1 & 2. In the said letter it was mentioned/confirmed that the Complainant is selected as a ‘Trainee Photographer’ with their principals Carnivals Cruise Lines with their Head Office, based in Miami, Florida and as he was expected to join the ship on 08/12/08 hence, police clearance was sought. The Complainant has produced copy of the said letter at Exh.‘C-3’. As per instructions of the Opposite Parties, Complainant cleared his police clearance, but was not called on 08/12/08. Very soon he was asked by the Opposite Party No.2 to deposit Rs.19,005/- with them towards their process and other medical fees, visa and other expenses. The Complainant immediately paid the said amount. Copy of payment acknowledgment dtd.14/11/08 by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is produced at Exh.‘C-4’
5) It is submitted that Complainant was further asked to arrange for his photograph and apply for US Visa which the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 did for him. After few days the Complainant had received final confirmation letter dtd.25/02/09 from Opposite Party No.1 & 2 stating that this employment letter from Carnival Cruise Lines, USA and he is to join the ship on 14th May to 22nd May, 2009 as a Trainee Photographer. Copy of said letter is produced at Exh.‘C-5’.
6) It is submitted by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.2 instructed him to deposit Rs.25,000/- with them and then Complainant immediately paid the amount to the Opposite Party. On 19/03/09, Opposite Party No.2 advised the Complainant to appear for an interview for Visa. Opposite Party No.2 further told the Complainant to go through a medical test after his visa. The complainant cleared his visa interview on 20/03/09. Thereafter, the Complainant was send by Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.3’s clinic for medical test. At the clinic of Opposite Party No.3 the Complainant honestly declared that in the year 1993 at Chennai, he was operated surgery of his left eye and since then he was perfectly fine. According to the Complainant, said doctor told him that it is not serious as it is not related with the Complainant’s job but asked him to arrange for the certificate. It is alleged by the Complainant that said doctor advised him that if he will go to Chennai for the certificate purpose then it will be time consuming and also add some extra expenses. Opposite Party No.3 doctor suggested to the Complainant that he can arrange for the required said certificate on payment of equal amount which he had spend in 1993 towards operation. The Complainant had raised objection to the aforesaid advice and denied to do the said illegal act. Thereafter said doctor i.e. Opposite Party No.3 literally threatened and rudely challenged the Complainant that he will see how the Complainant will get this job and how the Complainant joins the ship. After aforesaid incident the Complainant met Opposite Party No.2, but Opposite Party No.2 did not pay any attention. As Opposite Party No.3 has not cleared the Complainant’s medical test, hence, Complainant continued his follow up with Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 carried out several tests and collected lot of money from him but never issued any receipt. When the Complainant repeatedly asked for receipts, Opposite Party No.3 told him that it will be given at the time of final reports. Opposite Party No.3 advised Complainant to get done Sonography of his liver. The Complainant has collected his reports and produced them before Opposite Party No.2. At that time Opposite Party No.2 shouted at the Complainant and refused to see the reports. The Complainant was unnecessarily asked by Opposite Party No.2 to visit Opposite Party No.3 who said that he has not been paid the amount equallant to the eye surgery, hence, he will not give fitness certificate to the Complainant. The Complainant has suggested two options to Opposite Party No.3 that either he is ready to go to Chennai and bring the doctor certificate or he was examined in Delhi by Dr. Pattnaik’s (M.D. AIIMS, Director) one of the eminent doctor in India & South Asia whose certificate he can produce, but both the options were flouted by the Opposite Party No.3.
7) It is alleged by the Complainant that ultimately with malafide intention Opposite Party No.3 failed the Complainant in medical tests. When the Complainant asked for the reports that time he was insulted by Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant has also informed the said incident to Opposite Party No.2 but Opposite Party No.2 did not listen the Complainant’s grievances. It is further alleged that Opposite Party No.2 held Complainants passport without any reason, even though Complainant from time to time asked him to return the same. According to the Complainant the Opposite Party No.2 told him that if he wants his passport back then he has to quit the job and forget the money deposited by him. Opposite Party No.2 further threatened Complainant that he will cancel his Visa. Therefore, the Complainant filed complaint to Colaba Police Station and Cuff Parade Police Station. It is submitted that as per instruction of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 it was told to the Complainant that as per US Embassy Rules/Norms, the Complainants Passport is detained, but they were unable to give specific reason for the same. When the Complainant made enquiry with the US Embassy, it was told that there is no such rule and they have not detained his passport.
8) According to the Complainant, he realized that the mischief which is played by the Opposite Party, could spoil his life and carrier. Therefore, he decided to ask back his Passport and amount which he has paid to the Opposite Party. After lot of follow up, on 17/06/09, he received an amount of Rs.25,000/- by cheque from Opposite Party No.1 & 2, but further amount is not paid.
9) After 3 months Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have returned the Complainant’s Passport and cancelled his Visa on 19/06/09. The Complainant has produced acknowledgement of letter at Exh.‘C-7’. On 21/07/09, the Complainant lodged a police complaint with the Commissioner of Police and Colaba & Cuff Parade Police Station, Mumbai. Copy of complaint is produced at Exh.‘C-8’ and he has produced copies of e-mail correspondence, notice reply of Opposite Party No.1 & 2’s Advocate, etc. at Exh.‘C-9’ collectively.
10) The Complainant has produced copy of medical reports with the certificate given by Dr. Pattnaik’s, which clearly mentioned that Complainant had underwent laser refractive surgery (to remove glasses) of his left eye and referees his earlier surgery conducted in Chennai. The Complainant has also produced copy of Special Contract of Agreement for the post alongwith medical papers at Exh.‘C-10’.
11) According to the Complainant, with intention to safeguard their interest and skin, Opposite Parties have falsely alleged that Complainant has sexually harassed one of their female employees. The aforesaid allegation was baseless and frivolous. Because of this defamatory & scandalous allegation the Complainant was emotionally hurt and depressed. It has caused great mental agony to the Complainant. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.2 told the Complainant that “Do whatever you want to do”. It is alleged by the Complainant that there is deficiency in service and sheer negligence on the part of Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties are guilty of unfair trade practice and therefore, the Complainant has filed this complaint.
12) The Complainant has requested to direct Opposite Party No.1 & 3 to pay the legitimate amount due to the Complainant. The Complainant has requested to direct Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.18 Lacs for losing his job because of Opposite Parties and also for causing humiliation and mental and physical agony. The Complainant has claimed refund of amount of Rs.19,005/- paid to Opposite Party No.1 & 2, his staying charges in Mumbai @ Rs.6,500/- p.m. form March, 2009 till today, Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses to the Opposite Parties places, Rs.5,000/- towards paper work during this period and Rs.15,000/- for medical expenses for getting examined through Opposite Party No.3 & as per his advise. The Complainant has claimed a recovery of aforesaid amount with 18% p.a. interest from the date of payment till actual realization. Further he has prayed for Rs.15,000/- towards cost of this litigation.
13) In support of complaint, the Complainant has filed his affidavit and produced copies of document at Exh. ‘C-1’ to ‘C-10’.
14) Opposite Party No.1 & 2 were duly served with the notice, but inspite of service with notice of this complaint, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have not appeared before this Forum so ex-parte order was passed against Opposite Party No.1 & 2 on 07/04/2011.
15) Opposite Party No.3 has filed written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending interalia that complaint is totally false, frivolous and misleading and full of incorrect facts. It is alleged that the Complainant in order to cover-up his fraudulent acts has falsely implicated the Opposite Party No.3 in this complaint. It is alleged that Complainant has blatantly manipulated and fabricated documents which is very apparent on the face of it. Therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed.
16) It is submitted by the Opposite Party No.3 that after passing MBBS, he is practicing as a Medical Officer since 1984. He was Chief Medical Officer of The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and he was also associated with many Shipping Companies. Opposite Party No.1 is a manning agent which runs the agency for recruiting the candidates who are desirous of joining shipping companies. Opposite Party No.2 is the Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1. He himself being a Doctor, use to carry out medical examination of such candidates who are referred to him by the Opposite Party No.1. According to Opposite Party No.3, candidates who approach Opposite Party No.1, get slip from office of Opposite Party No.1 to do his pre-employment, medical examination for the particular company that he intends to join. The medical expenses are deposited with Opposite Party No.1. After the candidate approaches Opposite Party No.3, medical test is done under his supervision at his clinic and report are sent to the Opposite Party No.1 after retaining a photo copy of the same. Opposite Party No.1 in turn sends all the reports to the medical department of the Carnival Cruise Lines and the approval is awaited from them as regards the finality of the selection of the said candidate.
17) It is submitted that in the instant case the Complainant had approached Opposite Party No.3 with a slip from Opposite Party No.1 to carry out his medical test for Carnival Cruise Lines. The Complainant was given a form/declaration to be filled in. The Complainant in his declaration has clearly mentioned that he had some eye–related problem. The Complainant stated that he was hit on left eye by a teacher. The Complainant stated that a Cataract operation was done on his left eye at “Shankar Netralaya” in October, 1993. Therefore, Opposite Party No.3 asked the Complainant whether the Complainant possesses any document to support his contention to which Complainant replied in the negative, but told that he can get them if required. After a few days, the Complainant again came to his clinic and stated that he is not in a position to get any document which would show that he had undergone Cataract operation in the year 1993. He further asked Opposite Party No.3 whether certificate brought by him will suffice the purpose. The Complainant had brought certificate dtd.27/04/09 of Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute of New Delhi and not from “Shankar Netralaya” as mentioned in the Complainant’s declaration form that too not for cataract surgery but having undergone cosmetic laser surgery, therefore, Opposite Party No.3 sought a clarification from the Complainant. At that point the Complainant told Opposite Party No.3 that he can get any number of certificates. The Complainant requested Opposite Party No.3 to allow him to make changes in his declaration form but Opposite Party No.3 refused to do so. After few days once again the Complainant came to the clinic of the Opposite Party 3 with one more certificate which was dtd.29/04/09, which stated that Complainant had undergone a Cataract surgery of his left eye on 19/10/1993 and later a Cosmetic Laser surgery for his left eye on 07/09/07 in Dr. Pattnaik’s Eye Institute. Opposite Party No.3 pointed out to the Complainant that in the declaration given by the Complainant it is stated that the Complainant had undergone Cataract surgery at Shankar Netralaya and not at Dr. Pattnaik’s Eye Institute. Then the Complainant requested Opposite Party No.3 to allow to make changes in his declaration form but Opposite Party No.3 refused to do so. Thereafter, once again the Complainant brought another certificate dtd.01/06/09 from Dr. Pattnaik’s Eye Institute, New Delhi, which stated that the Complainant had undergone Cataract surgery in October, 93 in “Shankar Netralaya, at Chennai”.
18) According to the Opposite Party No.3, he refused to accept the documents brought by the Complainant, primarily on three grounds – (i) The Complainant was easily getting these documents and therefore, authenticity of document was doubtful as every document had a different version. (ii) If a person undergoes an operation at one particular hospital then some other hospitals would not issue any such certificate to that effect on behalf of another hospital and (iii) Certificate dtd.29/04/09 mentioned that Complainant had undergone Cataract surgery at ‘Shankar Netralaya’ at Chennai. Hence, suspicious arose in the mind of Opposite Party No.3 regarding genuineness and authenticity of certificate produced by the Complainant and therefore, Opposite Party No.3 refused to act upon those certificates. Opposite Party No.3 informed Opposite Party No.2 regarding such production of certificates by the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party No.3, on 05/06/09 the Complainant was interviewed by representative of Carnival Cruise Lines and ultimately the Complainant was rejected. Opposite Party No.3 has produced copies of declaration form and aforesaid certificates produced by the Complainant alongwith written statement at Exh.‘A’. Opposite Party No.3 has denied allegations that he accepted money from the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant has made false and frivolous allegations against Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 has denied each and every allegation made in the complaint and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on his part and the allegation made by the Complainant are false and frivolous and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed by imposing heavy cost.
19) Opposite Party No.3 has filed affidavit of evidence. The Complainant has filed written argument. Heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate Kiran Patil for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate Mr. Shreeram Shirsat for Opposite Party No.3.
20) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 3 ?
Findings : No
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed for ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- Following facts are undisputed facts that the Complainant is originally from Jharkhand State and presently he is residing at Anand Nagar, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai–49. Opposite Party No.2 is a Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 M/s. Indus Cruising and Shipping. Opposite Party No.3 is a Doctor by profession. It appears from the record that about in the month of Feb., 2008, the Complainant while searching the internet came across a job offer for the post of Photographer with the Cruise Lines. So he applied on line for the said job. After few months he received a call from Opposite Party No.1 & 2 that he has been selected for an interview. By letter dtd.05/11/08, the Complainant was offered monthly salary of $ 1000 by Carnival Cruise Lines, Miami. Offer letter is produced at Exh. ‘C-1’. It appears from the contents of aforesaid letter that it was conditional offer pending reference, background cheque and pre-employment physical. The pre-employment physical was subject to final approval from the Carnival Medical Department. On 08/11/2008, the Complainant went for an interview and he was selected for the said job. After selection the Complainant was handed over on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 the offer letter as well as prospectus of his schedule till departure to USA. Copy of prospectus is produced at Exh. ‘C-2’. It is on the letter head of Opposite Party No.1 by letter dtd.14/11/08, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 confirmed that Complainant is selected as a Trainee Photographer with their Principals Carnival Cruise Lines and in the letter it was mentioned that the Complainant was expected to join ship on 08/12/08 and for that purpose police clearance was sought. According to the Complainant, he obtained police clearance and thereafter he was asked by Opposite Party No.2 to deposit Rs.19,005/- with them towards their process/other legal charges, Visa etc. The Complainant paid the said amount. Receipt of Rs.19,005/- issued by Opposite Party No.1 is produced alongwith Exh.‘C-4’. It is not dispute that Complainant was further asked to give his photograph and applied for the US Visa which Opposite Party No.1 & 2 did for him. Subsequently, the Complainant received final confirmation letter dtd.25/02/2009 from Carnival Cruise Lines. According to the Complainant, thereafter the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 called upon him to deposit Rs.25,000/- with them. Then the Complainant accordingly deposited the same. Copy of Rs.25,000/- dtd.19/03/09 is produced on record. As per the instructions of Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant appeared for an interview for Visa on 20/03/09 and then Opposite Party No.2 sent the Complainant for medical tests to the clinic of Opposite Party No.3. It is not dispute that Opposite Party No.3 did not clear the Complainant his medical test. It appears that subsequently, on the ground of medical problem Complainant’s job offer with Carnival Cruise Lines was cancelled.
According to the Complainant, due to the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 3 he lost his job opportunity and thereby suffered mental agony and financial loss. The Complainant has mainly blamed Opposite Party No.3 alleging that Opposite Party No.3 from time to time demanded money and with malafide intention did not issue medical fitness certificate. Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that when Complainant went for medical test to the clinic of Opposite Party No.3 the Complainant honestly declared that in the year 1993 at Chennai, he had undergone surgery of left eye and since then he is perfectly fine. However, Opposite Party No.3 - Dr. Haresh asked him to arrange for the certificate from Chennai. The Complainant was ready to go to Chennai for certificate purpose. However, that time Opposite Party No.3 suggested the complainant that instead of going to Chennai for certificate purpose if the Complainant pays equal amount spent for operation in 1993 he can arrange for the required certificate in Mumbai itself. However, the Complainant had raised objection to the aforesaid advice and denied to do the said illegal act. Thereafter said doctor i.e. Opposite Party No.3 literally gave threat to the Complainant and rudely challenged the Complainant that he will see how the Complainant will get this job and how the Complainant join the ship. So, the Complainant went to Opposite Party No.2 to put forth his grievance but no attention was paid by Opposite Party No.2. Again the Complainant went to Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 carried out several tests and collected lot of money from him, but never issued any receipt. Opposite Party No.3 advised him to get done Sonography of his liver. The Complainant collected his reports and produced them before Opposite Party No.2 but Opposite Party No.2 shouted at the Complainant and refused to see the reports. The Complainant was unnecessarily asked by Opposite Party No.2 to visit Opposite Party No.3. It is alleged that as Complainant refused to pay an amount equallant to eye surgery to Opposite Party No.3, Opposite Party No.3 with a malafide intention failed him in medical test even though he had given certificate of Dr. Pattnaik’s (M.D. AIIMS, Director).
Ld.Advocate Shri. Shirsat, for Opposite Party No.3 has submitted that Complainant has made false, baseless and defamatory allegations against Opposite Party No.3 with intention to cover up his illegal acts. It is submitted that when the Complainant had came to the clinic of Opposite Party No.3, he had brought slip from Opposite Party No.1 to carry out medical test for Carnival Cruise Lines. Opposite Party No.3 was previously working as Chief Medical Officer of Shipping Company and have also been associated with many Shipping Companies. The Opposite Party No.3 has produced copy of the declaration form filled up by the Complainant submitting that in the declaration form the Complainant had clearly mentioned that he had some eye-related problem. The Complainant had given history that he was hit on left eye by a teacher. Further, he disclosed that a Cataract operation was done on his left eye at “Shankar Netralaya” in October, 1993. It appears from the copy of Notarized declaration form filled and singed by the Complainant that Complainant has mentioned that he had an eye problem. Short history given is as follows “he was hit on left eye by a teacher. Cataract operation was done on my left eye at Shankar Netralaya.” In view of aforesaid information given by the Complainant Opposite Party No.3 asked for documents to support history given in the declaration form. However, the Complainant was not possessing any document from Shankar Netralaya, Chennai, to prove that in October, 1993 he was operated on the left eye at Shankar Netralaya. It is submitted that after aforesaid enquiry the Complainant left clinic of Opposite Party No.3 and after few days retuned to the clinic. That time Complainant had brought one certificate dtd.27/04/09 issued by Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute, New Delhi, in which it is mentioned that the Complainant had undergone the cosmetic laser surgery for his left eye in Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute. Ld.Advocate has referred to copy of certificate dtd.27/04/09 issued by Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute produced alongwith written statement in which it is stated that “Mr. Abhishek Gupta underwent a cosmetic laser surgery on his left eye on 07/09/07.” Further Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party No.3 has pointed out declaration filled by the Complainant submitting that nowhere in the declaration Complainant has stated about cosmetic laser surgery done on 07/09/07. Further it is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 that after, few days again the Complainant brought another certificate of Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute of New Delhi on 29/04/09. Opposite Party No.3 has produced copy of the said letter. Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party No.3 has referred to the contents of the said letter in which it is stated that ‘Mr. Abhishek Gupta underwent cataract surgery for his left eye on 19/10/09 and later cosmetic surgery in his left eye in Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute on 07/02/2007 to remove classes.’ According to Ld.Advocate Shri.Shirsat, one hospital cannot give certificate regarding surgery performed in another hospital. So it was not expected on the part of Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute to give certificate regarding operation performed on the left eye of the Complainant on 19/10/03 at Shankar Netralaya, Chennai. It was expected on the part of Complainant to produce certificate from Shankar Netralaya, Chennai, itself. However, the Complainant brought two certificates form Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute of different contents. In fact, in the declaration the Complainant did not declare cosmetic laser surgery performed on his left eye at Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute and therefore, Opposite Party No.3 suspected genuineness of the certificates produced by the Complainant. In view of the aforesaid facts Opposite Party No.3 has not issued medical fitness certificate to the Complainant. As Opposite Party No.3 did not issue medical fitness certificate, the Complainant has made false, baseless and defamatory allegations against Opposite Party No.3. On the contrary, the Complainant misbehaves with lady employee and on that ground complaint was lodged against the Complainant.
Considering the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that Opposite Party No.3 with malafide intention refused to issue fitness certificate as alleged. On the contrary it appears that in the declaration form the Complainant had suppressed material facts of laser eye surgery on his left eye at Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute, New Delhi and did not produce any documentary evidence to support that he had undergone cataract surgery at Shankar Netralaya, Chennai. Further, medical certificates of Dr. Pattnaik’s Laser Eye Institute, appears to be doubtful.
It is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 & 2 did not behave properly with the Complainant when complainant made grievance against Opposite Party No.3 to Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 did not pay any attention. Due to negligence on deficiency in service of Opposite Parties the Complainant lost his job opportunity. After cancellation of job offer, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 unnecessarily detained Complainant’s passport from 9th March, 2009 till 19/06/09 and thereby the Complainant loss other job opportunity. It is submitted that the Complainant from time to time asked from Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to refund money and return his passport but Opposite Party No.1 & 2 illegally for about 3 months retained his passport and refunded only Rs.25,000/- but refused to return balance amount Rs.19,005/-. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 & 2. The Complainant on this ground had filed complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Colaba & Cuff Parade Police Station. Copies of which are produced on record. The Complainant has not disclosed result of police investigation.
Alongwith complaint the Complainant has produced receipt of payment of Rs.19,005/- dtd.14/11/08 and receipt of payment of Rs.25,000/- dtd.19/03/09 to Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has admitted that he has received refund of Rs.25,000/- from Opposite Party on 17/06/09. The Complainant has claimed recovery of Rs.19,005/-. The Complainant has produced e-mail correspondence took place between the parties. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have refused to refund Rs.19,005/- on the ground that they have rendered service to the Complainant for which said amount was taken. The Complainant has admitted that Opposite Party No.1 & 2 had make arrangement for his Visa and reduced other services. It appears that Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have rendered services to the Complainant for the purpose of which aforesaid amount was taken and therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to claim refund of Rs.19,005/-. Therefore, Refusal of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to refund of Rs.19,005/- to the Complainant, cannot be treated as deficiency in service. Further, according to the Complainant, Opposite Party deliberately detained his passport illegally and thereby he suffered mental agony and lost other job opportunity. It appears from the documents and e-mail correspondence between the parties that Opposite Party No.1 & 2 had arranged C1/D type of Visa for the Complainant from US Consulate, so as to enable the Complainant to join his job abroad. However, Complainant’s job offer as Trainee Photographer was subsequently cancelled and therefore, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 had sent passport to the US Consulate to cancel the Visa. By e-mail dtd.16/01/09, Opposite Party No.2 had informed the Complainant that “As your passport had valid C1/D Visa & hence, it was not handed to you as it could have been misused.” From the evidence on record, we do not find substance in the allegations made by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 & 2 deliberately and unauthorisedly detained his passport for unreasonably longer period. Due to the medical problem the Complainant could not get the job of Trainee Photographer by Carnival Cruise Lines and for that purpose Opposite Party cannot be blamed. Considering the facts and circumstance, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 3. In the result we answer point no.1 in the negative.
Point No.2 :- As discussed above, the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 3, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed. Hence, we answer point no.2 in the negative.
For the reasons discussed above the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.230/2010 is dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
