SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to refund Rs.50,000/- already received by the OP from the complainant along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of the proceedings for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
The brief of the complaint :
The OP offered and published the job seeker visa of General helper in Poland through the daily news paper Malayala Manorama dtd.19/4/2023. Then the complainant approached the OP only on seeing and believing the advertisement of OP’s institution. Then the OP agreed that the interview was conducted in his institution dtd.23/4/2023. On 23/4/2023 the complainant and other candidates attended the interview and the OP states that they issue Poland visa for General helper post. In that post the eligibility for appointment is only 10 standard education and the job is assured in unskilled work like packing in ware house or farm work. Then the interested candidates applied the Poland visa will be arranged within 4 months. Moreover, the OP assured that the selecting company of the Poland issue offer letter and job permit. At the time of interview the OP assured that the service charge may be remitted and whatever reason the visa is not obtained within 4 months the full amount is returned to the applicant. Thereafter on 15/5/2023 the OP informed the complainant that the fees should be remitted immediately. On 17/5/2023 the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to OP’s bank account through online google pay. After receiving the amount the OP issued the cash receipt invoice to the complainant also. Thereafter on 25/7/2023 the complainant got a polish language PDF file with his name and passport number and the OP stated that this is the visa applied copy and remitted an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- also. Then the complainant understood the polish language through the help of google translator. They submits that this is not visa applied copy and only a work permit application. Moreover the applicant is having eligible qualification of applied post , legally attested copy of the qualification certificate , work experience and all other certificate mentioned in the check list. So the complainant is having only an SSLC qualification and aware of that fact the OP is intentionally cheated the complainant and misrepresent the electrician post to apply the visa and earned the amount from the complainant. Then the complainant approached OP’s office on 5/9/2023 and demanded to refund the amount. But the OP is not ready to refund the amount. On 23/4/2023, 15/5/2023, 5/9/2023 the complainant personally approached to OP. Then the complainant send so many e –mail communications to OP for refund of the amount. But the OP not replied the e-mail communication also. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice issued to OP . OP received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed version . The commission had to hold that the OP have no version as such this case came to be proceed against the OP as set exparte.
Even though the OP is remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 7 documents marked as Exts.A1 to A7. The complainant was examined as PW1. So the OP remains absent in this case. At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents. Ext.A1 is the payment details of statement of accounts. Ext.A2 is the payment receipt dtd.17//5/2023. Ext.A3 is the news paper advertisement dtd.19/4/2023 in Malayala Manorama news paper. Ext.A4 is the work permit application issued by OP in the name of complainant and visa applied copy dtd.25/7/2023. Ext.A5 is the work permit issued by OP dtd.7/9/2023. Ext.A6 is google review post upto 7/3/2023. Ext.A7 is the advertisement published in Malayala Manorama daily news paper dtd.28/2/2024. In the above document Exts.A1&A2 clearly shows that the complainant already paid Rs.50,000/- to OP as process fee of visa for the job in Poland. But the OP is not arrange the visa to the complainant and other applicants. In Ext.A4&A5 issued by the OP is not the visa or work permit. The repeated demand of the complainant the OP is not ready to refund the amount. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. The OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the OP is liable to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.50,000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization . Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Bank statement-UPI transfer receipt
A2-payment receipt dtd.17/5/2023
A3&A7- Malayala Manorama daily dtd.19/4/2023, 28/2/2024
A4&A5 work permit issued by OP dtd.25/7/2023, 7/9/2023
A6- google review upto 7/3/2024
PW1-Mahesh- complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
