Date of Filing      : 22.03.2017

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 18.10.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                    ....MEMBER-II

  

CC. No.21/2017

THIS TUESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

1.Mr.Harishkanna,

    No.6, Bajanai Koil Street, Kodali Village,

    Vembi Post, Vellor District – 632 518.

 

2.Mr.Kumaresh,

   No.6, Bajanai Koil Street, Kodali Village,

   Vembi Post, Vellor District – 632 518.                                    .........Complainants. 

                                                                          //Vs//

The Managing Director,

M/s.Sai Education and Job Consultancy,

No.25, Ground Floor, AKR Nagar, 3rd Street,

Sri Devi Gardens, Valasaravakkam,

Chennai -600 087.                                                                               ...Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainants                        :  Party in Person. 

Counsel for the opposite party                      :   Mr.S.Muthukumaravel, Advocate.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 30.09.2022 in the presence complainant who appeared in person and Mr.S.Muthukumaravel Advocate, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging dissatisfied with the service rendered by the Job consultancy/opposite party for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid by the opposite party. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The crux of the complaint is that the complainants are BE Degree Holders who were looking for job and were searching jobs in Google. When they got registered their requirements in the website called www.Sulekha.com the opposite party approached them for registration.  On assurance that they would be given placement in Thailand based company at Sriperumpudur, the opposite party sought for registration fee by the complainant on payment of Rs.1000/-.  The complainants paid Rs.2,000/- for both of them.  However the complainants did not receive any call from the job consultancy/opposite party and HR of inventec.  When the complainants enquired the opposite party they informed that they are waiting for confirmation call from HR and the complainant would be called for an interview soon.  However, thereafter there was no communication shared by the opposite party to the complainant.  Thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the complaint itself is not maintainable and they had not assured for any immediate job at Sriperumpudur.  It was submitted that they would forward the resumes of its customers to the companies HR Manager where job availability is found by them.  When the concerned companies HR Managers get satisfied they would provide a job. The applicants would get a job depending upon the requirement of the concerned companies and based on the sanction list of the Multi National Companies.  The opposite party never assured for a job within a time frame and it is absolutely beyond their capacity.  Thus stating that their responsibility was only to forward the complainant’s resumes to the companies.  Further, though a job was arranged for the complainants in Chennai based company they were adamant and insisted for a job in Multi National Company.  Thus the opposite party sought for the complaint to be dismissed. 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B3 were filed by them.  

Points for consideration:-

Whether the deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants against the opposite party in not procuring a job for them even after receipt of the registration charges has been successfully proved by the complainant?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

Snapshot contains address of consultancy received the complainant’s mobile number dated 26.12.2016 was marked as Ex.A1;

Snapshot contain opposite party’s current account details  received from the complainant mobile number through SMS dated 29.12.2016 was marked as Ex.A2;

Photo copy of jewel loan’s ID card dated 04.01.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;

Statement of Accounts of the complainant from 03.01.2017 to 31.01.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;

Statement of the complainant pre-paid mobile number for the period of Jan & Feb 2017 was marked as Ex.A5;

E-mail copy contains the complainant call back request and final refund request was marked as Ex.A6;

Remind letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 30.03.2017 was marked as Ex.A7;

On the side of the opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their contentions;

Phone Bill of the opposite party from 05.03.2017 to 04.04.2017 was marked as Ex.B1;

Receipt in the name of complainant dated 05.01.2017 was marked as Ex.B2;

Receipt in the name of 2nd complainant dated 05.01.2017 was marked as Ex.B3;

  Both parties appeared before this commission and submitted their oral and written arguments.

The crux of the arguments advanced by the Party in Person/Complainant is that even after receiving Rs.2,000/- as registration fee for both the complainants, the opposite party failed to fetch any job to them and they also failed to provide the details about the companies to which the opposite party had forwarded their resumes.  They also disputed that a job was offered to the complainants which they adamantly refused to join.  It is the specific arguments that the opposite party failed to produce any email communications to prove forwarding the complainant’s resumes to the companies and they also disputed the evidence rendered by one Mr.Gnanavel Moorthy who stated that he was ready to offer a job to the complainants but the complainants refused the same.  Further the 2nd complainant had not received any kind of calls from the opposite party. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainants sought for the complaint to be allowed. 

The crux of the arguments by the opposite party is that their nature of job is only to forward the resume of its customers to the concerned company‘s HR Manager depending upon their requirement and after the company is satisfied the opposite party’s customer would be provide a job.  Further it was argued that they never assured any job to the complainant by relying upon the terms and conditions in the bill vide clause No.4 and 9.  It is stated that no question of compensation would arise as the complainant had skipped an interview suggested by them.

We perused the records and this commission comes to a conclusion that the complaint allegation could not be entertained.  The complainant had produced sufficient proof to show that they had made payment of Rs.2,000/- to the opposite party towards registration charges which aspect was not denied by the opposite party.  Further Ex.A3 a jewel loan receipt was also produced by the complainant to show that they obtained money by pledging the jewel to pay the registration charges. However in the said receipt it is seen that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been obtained whereas the registration charges were only Rs.2,000/-. Even then the same could not be taken for consideration as it cannot be presumed that the said amount was received only for the payment of registration charges.  Further the complainant had not produced any documents to show that the opposite party had promised jobs for both the complainants by merely registering with them. No prudent person registering with a job consultancy could allege that they 100% believed that the job consultancy would fetch a job for them.  The opposite party had produced Ex.B2 & Ex.B3 the receipt issued to the complainants along with terms and conditions.  Under the said terms and conditions it is seen that processing fee is charged for interview allotment of two companies and in case no allotment is made by them the processing fee is 100% refundable.  Further it is found that if the candidates do not fulfill the criteria’s imposed by the companies, our consultancy would not be held responsible. Though it is alleged by the opposite party that they have offered interview to the complainants in Chennai based companies and they produced proof affidavit of one Mr.Gnanavel Moorthy who said to be the team leader at the Genuine It Solution stating that he got resume of the complainants and made a call on 01.04.2017 but as the complainants not interested in pursuing a job in his company he had left out the name of the complainants. In the arguments advanced by the complainant they have disputed the proof affidavit of Mr.Gnanavel Moorthy.  However, they did not choose to cross examine him to prove that it is false.  In such circumstances this commission has have to believe the same.  Thus we could hold that the defence of the opposite party has been proved. Further seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from a job consultancy for not procuring or arranging a job by merely registering with them found to be unreasonable and could not be entertained.  In such circumstances we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove their case and the complaint cannot allowed on mere bald allegations made by them. Thus we answe the point accordingly.

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the complainants had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, they were not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18th day of October 2022.

      

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 26.12.2016 Snapshot contains address of consultancy received the complainant’s mobile number. Xerox

Ex.A2 29.12.2016 Snapshot contain opposite party’s current account details  received from the complainant mobile number through SMS. Xerox

Ex.A3 04.01.2017 Photo copy of jewel loan’s ID card. Xerox

Ex.A4 05.01.2017 Statement of Accounts of the complainant from 03.01.2017 to 31.01.2017. Xerox

Ex.A5 Jan 2017 Statement of the complainant pre-paid mobile number for the period of Jan & Feb 2017. Xerox

Ex.A6 30.01.2017 to 

17.02.2017 E-mail copy contains the complainant call back request and final refund request. Xerox

Ex.A7 30.03.2017 Remind letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 .............. Copy of Phone Bill of the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.B2 05.01.2017 Receipt in the name of 1st complainant. Xerox

Ex.B3 05.01.2017 Receipt in the name of 2nd complainant. Xerox

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT