DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.699 of 2014
Date of institution: 15.12.2014 Date of decision : 16.09.2020
Tejveer Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh Resident of Bucho Mandi, Ward No. 8, Bharma Basti, Distt.Bathinda.
…….Complainant
Versus
M/s. World Class Enterprises (Regn.No.3968), SCO-43, IInd Floor, Phase-IX, Mohali through Mrs. Shalini Kapoor.
2nd Address:
Shalini Kapoor d/o Atma Ram, r/o 16 CD YAL Subvilla, Tehsil Dharmshala, District Kangra (H.P.)
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short), on the ground that CC is a consumer of the OP and in the month of August , 2011 CC approached the office of OP in order to apply for visa alongwith work permit for going abroad. (However, the name of the country is not mentioned, where the CC had intended to go). It is alleged that OP had received an amount to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- “in cash” from the CC and assured the CC that in case of rejection of visa, the said amount will be refunded to the CC and in this regard an undertaking was given by the OP in writing to the CC. It is further alleged that the OP issued a cheque to the CC bearing No.166855 dated 30.04.2012 of Rs.1,80,000/- of Bank of India, Mohali in favour of the CC. It is alleged that neither the OP could arrange the visa nor refunded the amount to the CC.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought the following relief:
(a) refund of Rs.1,80,000/- from the OP alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
(b) the CC has sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. The OP has chosen to remain ex-parte and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.01.2018 of this Commission.
3. The CC in support of his complaint tendered in evidence various documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and thereafter closed his evidence.
4. Since the entire evidence of the CC is on the file and the OP is already ex-parte, we feel, that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act which is enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties. Further the grievance of the CC appears to be an old one and the matter pertains to the year 2014.
5. Admittedly the CC has no where mentioned in his complaint for which specific country he was seeking visa as well as work permit. This shows that the facts of this case may be different. Further the CC has submitted copy of Fir Ex.C-1. It is pertinent to mention here that the name of the CC does not figure in the FIR. Further the CC has submitted Ex.C-3, which is the document written by CC himself in which he is making request that his money may be refunded in case he does not get visa for New Zealand. Other document Ex.C-4 is showing payment of Rs.60,000/- by complainant but it is not made clear who signed this document. Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint that Tejveer Singh on 25.08.2011 paid Rs.60,000/- of the total amount, claimed by him, was paid in different installments. Just photocopy of one cheque Ex.C-5 to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh sent by the OP is filed by the CC. It is pertinent to mention here that no bank endorsement or any certificate from the bank is filed alongwith the complaint to prove that this cheque was not encashed by the bank.
6. From the perusal of all documents, it appears that the CC has suppressed the true and correct facts from this Commission. It appears that the CC has suppressed the origin and genesis of the actual facts from this Commission. No doubt the Consumer Protection Act is enacted to protect the rights of the consumers and also to provide a speedy redressal of their grievances but at the same time the intention of the legislature is very clear. Nobody can be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission by concealing true and correct facts and by not submitting documents to the satisfaction of the Commission. From the very perusal of the file it appears that this is a case where the CC has suppressed the true and actual facts from this Commission. We feel, that in that eventuality, the CC does not deserve any relief from this Commission. Otherwise also it is a settled preposition of law that whosoever does not approach the court of law with true and correct facts, does not deserve any relief.
7. In view of our above findings, the present complaint merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, no cost is imposed. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
September 16, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
