BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of May 2012
Filed on : 18-05-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.258/2011
Between
Sunil Kumar K, : Complainant
S/o. Narayanan, (By Adv. Roy Varghese,
Karatte Veedu, Olimolath, Pancode P.O.,
Puthencruz. Ernakulam-682 310)
And
N.G. John, Nedumparambil : Opposite party
Associates, (By Adv. Biju P. Thomas,
Nedumparambil Towers, 40/6564, 1st floor, Vittappa-
Puthencruz. Prabhu road,Ernakulam-35.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The facts that brought up filing of this complaint are the following:
The complainant is a carpenter. The opposite party is conducting a financial enterprise. Lured by the assurances of the opposite party the complainant approached the opposite party to get visa in a company by name Hamwood Ltd., Mzimba in South Africa. To meet the expenses for the visa the complainant pawned 80 grams of gold with the opposite party. The complainant had also to spend Rs. 47,000/- to purchase air ticket. However the opposite party issued a visiting visa instead of a permanent visa. On enquiry the opposite party assured him that a work permit would be stamped with his passport South Africa. Accordingly the complainant left India to South Africa on 24-11-2010 and reached there on 30-11-2010. The complainant was not accommodated in the company offered by the opposite party. On the contrary he was appointed to Vico Company at Malawi. The complainant was employed 2 months and 15 days in the company. The complainant was paid only one month’s salary. Later the complainant came to understand that the opposite party had arranged visa to the company of his daughter and son-in-law. The visa of the complainant was not stamped as work permit and so he was compelled to return to India. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing visiting visa instead a job visa. The complainant estimates damages at Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The opposite party is running a financial institution with valid license. The opposite party is not engaged in the business of arranging visas to South Africa. The complainant’s wife Smt. Nisha was working in an office near to the office of the opposite party. She used to pledge gold ornaments with the opposite party and she was redeeming the same in due course. On 10-11-2010 the complainant pledged gold ornaments to the tune of Rs. 1,01,300/- and on 24-11-2010 he pledged gold and availed rupees 20,000/-. But later the complainant failed to redeem the pledged amounts and the opposite party issued notice to the complainant. The opposite party has no connection with the visa arrangements. He is doing gold loan business only. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- from
the opposite party?
ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay the costs of the
proceedings to the complainant?
5. Points Nos. i&ii. According to the complainant the opposite party arranged visa for him to South Africa . It is stated that in spite of job visa the opposite party issued visiting visa to the complainant, so he could not continue in South Africa and he had to return to India, thereby he had to incur monitory loss as well as suffer mental agony. But the opposite party vehemently contented that he never issued visa to the complainant or he has no business in arranging visa.
6. During evidence the opposite party who was examined as DW1 admitted that his daughter and son-in-law who were in South Africa had visited India and at that time complainant and his wife approached them and requested for a visa to South Africa. Further DW1 stated that the complainant was to pledge gold ornaments in his business concern but he was not aware of the fact that whether the complainant has used the money to obtain visa. We have carefully gone through the documents on record. Nothing is on record to connect the opposite party with the visa processing of the complainant. Admittedly the daughter and son in law of the opposite party arranged visa for the complainant. If at all the complainant had any grievance with regard to the issuance of the visa, it must have been against the daughter and son-in-law of the opposite party. In short apart from the oral evidence of the complainant no evidence is before us to show any thing to the contrary which would not sustain the complaint. The opposite party who accepted the gold ornaments took a contention that he is ready and willing to return the gold ornaments as and when the complainant remits back the amount with interest. The complainant is free to approach the opposite party to retrieve the gold ornaments as and when he complies with the conditions of the opposite party to avoid procrastination the matter shall be settled within the stipulated time at all costs. However not to mention the matter shall not be unnecessarily prolonged to avoid litigation further. We fix it at 6 months. With the above observation the proceedings in this complaint stands closed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Copy of certificate dt. 18-11-2011
A2 : copy of General receipt dt.18-11-2010
A3 : Copy of General receipt dt. 30-11-2010
A4 : Copy of itinerary receipt
A5 : Copy of receipt dt. 24-11-2010
A6 : Copy of passenger itinerary receipt
A7 : Copy of lawyer notice dt. 03-03-2011
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 series : two auction notices
B2 Series : terms and conditions 7 in numbers.
Depositions:
PW1 : Sunil Kumar K.N.,
PW2 : Nisha Sunilkumar
DW1 : N.G. John
