Govt of West Bengal
Office of the President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling
24, M,C. Road, Chota Kak Jhora , Darjeeling
P.O & Dist. Darjeeling Pin- 734101.
PRESIDENT : DEBASIS MUKHOPADHYAY
MEMBER : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR SIDDHANTA
Consumer Case No: 17/2016
Shri Pukar Kharka
S/O Shri Balaram Kharka
Resident of Thana Line, Mirik, Ward No. 03,
P.O and P.S Mirik,
Dist- Darjeeling.
…………………………………………………….complainant
V–E-R-S-U-S
Miss Punam Gurung
D/O Shri Ram Prasad Gurung,
Upper Johnson Hatta, Upper Sonada,
Near Sonada Police Out Post,
P.O. Sonada, P.S Jorebunglow,
Dist- Darjeeling-734101.
………………………………………………………..O.P(s)
For the complainants : Shri Arbind Kumai.
For the O.P(s) : Ms. Ritu Limbu.
Date of Fililng : 19.12.2016.
Date of Disposal : 23.08.2018.
Time Taken : 598 Days.
-2-
JUDGEMENT
Consumer Case No: 17/2016
The instant case has been filed on 19.12.2016 u/s 12 of the C.P Act , 1986 by Shri Pukar Kharka, resident of Thana Line, Mirik , Ward No. 03, P.O & P.S Mirik, Dist- Darjeeling against Miss Punam Gurung resident of Upper Johnson Hatta, Upper Sonada, Near Sonada Police Out Post, P.O-Sonada, P.S- Jorebunglow, Dist- Darjeeling.
The brief fact of the case are that the complainant stated that the O.P as an agent was sending the interested parties to Russia to work . The complainant being an unemployed person approached the O.P and showed his willingness and requested her for his enrollment for the overseas employment.
The O.P assured the complainant to provide overseas employment in Russia and asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 2,30,000/- only .
The complainant deposited the above amount in cash by executing an agreement and money receipt was issued on 22.06.2016.
In the said agreement dated 22.06.2016, the O.P had agreed to provide the overseas employment to the complainant and in case of failure to do so , she promised to refund the amount paid by the complainant within August 2016.
Even after the expiry of the period mentioned in the agreement i.e August 2016 , the O.P failed and neglected to process the application or to provide the overseas employment to the complainant in Russia or to refund the amount paid by the complainant.
The complainant approached the O.P several times requesting her to either provide employment or to refund the amount paid but the O.P failed to render her services to the complainant.
Being aggrieved , the complainant was forced to file the case against the O.P before this Forum, praying for the following reliefs:
- Direction to the O.P to refund Rs. 2,30,000/- only with bank interest.
- Compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant for monetary loss and mental agony.
- Litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/- .
The complainant filed the following documents in support of his case:
- Agreement dated 22.06.2016 (3 pages)
- Receipt of Jyotee Job Replacement dated 17.05.2016 for Rs. 2,20,000/-
The O.P entered appearance on 03.01.2017 and filed her W/v which was not supported by the affidavit, she had stated that she was just an agent appointed by one Shri Keshav Sharma of Thulung Gaon, Mirik.
She has also stated that the signature appearing in the agreement was not signed by her and it did not match with her original signature.
-3-
JUDGEMENT
Consumer Case No: 17/2016
Later on 15.02.2017 , the O.P filed additional written version through her Learned advocate.
In the additional written version, the O.P has submitted as follows:
- That the O.P was only an employee and not an agent in the company “Jyotee Job Placement” and her duty was to check mails and inform the same to Mr. Keshav Sharma , who was the manager and the agent of the company.
- The O.P contended that the total amount received by the company was Rs. 2,20,000/- only vide receipt dated 17.05.2016 and the claim of Rs. 2,30,000/- was for illegal gain.
The O.P herself never took any money and did not execute any agreement as alleged and did not grant any money receipt and as such she was not liable to refund any money.
The money receipt dated 22.06.2016 mentioned by the complainant in his complain does not
tally with the money receipt given by the company and received the same by the complainant.
The date mentioned in the money receipt is 17.05.2016 and not 22.06.2016 and the same has not been signed by the O.P and this proves that the O.P has not received any money from the complainant.
- The O.P further stated that the the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Since the company is liable and the Manager against whom the real grievances are there were not made parties there was no cause of action against this O.P. Hence ,the O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.
For better adjucation of the case the signatures of both the complainant as well as the O.P were sent to the handwriting expert for verification of signatures on the prayer of the O.P for which the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 5,180/- in T.R form No. 7 as fees for getting the report from handwriting expert.
The report from Questioned Document Examination Bureau, C.I.D , West Bengal, Bhawani Bhavan, Kolkata dated 01.09.2017 was received by the Forum on 09.10.2017.
In the said report being Questioned Document Case No. 389/2017 , the opinion of the handwriting expert is that :
- The person who wrote the standard signatures marked S1 did not write the disputed signatures marked Q1 and Q2.
- The person who wrote the standard signatures marked S2 also wrote the disputed signatures marked Q1 and Q2.
S1 was the admitted signatures of the O.P.
S2 was the admitted signatures of complainant.
Q1 , Q2 being the alleged signatures of the O.P in the alleged agreement dated 22.06.2016.
-4-
JUDGEMENT
Consumer Case No: 17/2016
No other evidence was put forward by both the parties.
The complainant later filed two more money receipts on 06.06.2018 which were dated as 21.04.2016 for Rs. 50,000/- and 22.04.2016 for Rs. 1,80,000/- but did not take further steps.
No objection was raised by the complainant against the report of the handwriting expert.
Both parties submitted written agreements.
Heard arguements of both sides.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
- Was the alleged agreement executed by the O.P?
- Has the O.P taken money from complaiant by executing the alleged money receipt?
- Is there any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the O.P?
- Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for or any other relief that she may be?
DECISION WITH REASONS:
Points No. 1 and 2:
Both the points taken together as they are inter-related.Perused all the materials on record .
Regardidng the alleged agreement the O.P denied it’s execution. The issue of execution of agreement was referred to the Handwriting Expert. As per expert report the signatures in the alleged agreement was not the signatures of the O.P. The Expert further opined that the signatures in the agreement tallied with the handwriting of the complainant himself.
Thus from the report of the Expert , it is proved that the O.P. did not execute the alleged agreemtnt. On the contrary it seems from the Expert report that the complainant himself manufactured the agreement as contended by the O.P.
The complainant also produced the copy of money receipt but failed to produce the original receipt and therefore the authenticity of the money receipt could not be verified by the Expert
in view of the denial of the O.P regarding it’s execution .
-5-
JUDGEMENT
Consumer Case No: 17/2016
Therefore it can safely be concluded that the complainant failed to prove that the O.P executed the alleged agreement or the money receipt by accepting the amount of money as alleged.
These two issues are therefore decided against the complainant and in favour of the O.P.
Points No. 3 and No.4:
Though the O.P , in her written version stated that the money might have been taken by the company “Jyotee Job Placement” and the manager of the company Keshav Sharma S/o Sovanath Sharma of Thulung Gaon, Mirik but the complainant failed and neglected to take any action against either the said company or the Manager as stated.
The O.P also did not raise any objection against the handwriting expert’s report , which specifically excluded the O.P as the signatory in the agreement.
Thus the complainant failed to prove his case against the O.P of this case and he is not entitled to get any relief against the O.P .
These issues are accordingly decided against the complainant and in favour of the O.P.
Therefore considering all the materials placed before this Forum carefully it is found that the complainant could not prove his case against this O.P and this case is liable to be dismissed as against the O.P.
In the result the case fails against the O.P.
-6-
JUDGEMENT
Consumer Case No: 17/2016
Hence it is :
O-R-D-E-R-E-D
That the C.C. No. 17/D/2016 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. but considering the facts without costs.
Let copies of the final order be supplied to the parties free of cost under order 5 Rule 10 of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.
Member President,
D.C.D.R.F, D.C.D.R.F,
Darjeeling. Darjeeling.
