Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/64/2011

Goru Chandra Sekharam - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.S. Rao - Opp.Party(s)

S. Pradeep Kumar

12 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:22-02.2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:12-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                             Thursday, the 12^th day of February, 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.64/2011

Between:-

Goru Chandra Sekharam, S/o Lakshmana Rao,

Hindu, aged 40 years, residing at D. No. 38-23-26,

Sreeram Nagar Colony, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-18.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.Indo-Ameri Sot, IIC,  Corporate Office,

   3301, West Esplanade Ave. South, Metairie,

   L.A. U.S.A., represented by its C.E.O.

   Sri R.S. Rao, S/o Not known to the Complainant,

   aged about 52 years. 

2.K. Venkata Rao, father’s name & aged not known

   to the Complainant, Manager (Local), Indo-Ameri Sot,

   U.S.A. and residing at D.No.20-220-1/1, Suryanagar,

   Kottapalem, Visakhapatnam-530027.

                                                                                 …  Opposite Parties 

                           

          This case coming on 20.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri S. Pradeep Kumar and B. Kalavathi, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri Pilla Bhaskar, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party being dismissed and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties directing him to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realization, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.  

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that the 1^st Opposite Party is the C.E.O. of above agency and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Office Manager and co-partner of the above agency and on publication by the Opposite Parties, he was attracted and approached the 2^nd Opposite Party for getting Green Card in U.S.A. for which the Opposite Parties demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- and accordingly he paid towards advance on 5.01.2007 and the Complainant passed a receipt to that effect,  but there is no call from the Opposite Parties and they kept quite inspite of his approaching them and postponed the same on that he requested to return the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- but they failed by giving evasive replies.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

3.       No beta paid by the 1^st Opposite Party, the case against 1^st Opposite Party is dismissed.

 

4.       The 2^nd Opposite Party filed counter denying the material averments of the Complaint and stated that he is not the co-partner of the Indo-America Soft LLC Agency and the Complainant was not attracted by any publicity and he has not approached them for getting Green Card and he never demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards advance on 5.01.2007 and no receipt  was passed and they are all incorrect.   

 

5.       That he was an unemployed and joined in the 1^st Opposite Party Office as an employee and he used to work as Office Manager and the 1^st Opposite Party used to pay Rs.2,200/- as salary to him.   He was employee in the Indo-America Soft LLC and its Corporate Office at U.S.A. and he worked in the office of the 1^st Opposite Party up to September, 2007 but the 1^st Opposite Party paid salary up to July, 2007 only, then he left the job and now working as welder in Visakhapatnam.   The receipt dated 05.01.2007 filed by the Complainant shows that he signed as Office Manager only and it shows that he is only the Office Manager, for these reasons, the Complaint is liable to dismissed.  

 

6.       To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant himself, he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1.   On the other hand, the 2^nd Opposite Party filed his evidence affidavit but no documents were marked for the 2^nd Opposite Party.

 

9.       Both parties are filed their respective written arguments.

 

10.     Heard oral arguments from both sides.

 

11.     Now the points that arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

 

12.     It is the contention of the Complainant that the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Office Manager and co-partner of Indo-America Soft LLC Agency.   To prove the same, the Complainant has not filed any documentary evidence.   In the absence of documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Office Manager and co-partner of Indo-America Soft LLC. Agency Corporate Office 3301, West esplanade AVE South, Metairie, L.A. U.S.A.    The Complainant has filed one receipt dated 05.01.2007 vide Ex.A1.    It clearly shows that the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Office Manager only, so it can be held that he was employee of the 1^st Opposite Party’s Office.   Ex.A1 further shows he worked as office manager.   According to the 2^nd Opposite Party, he used to get Rs.2,200/- as salary from the 1^st Opposite Party.   The 2^nd Opposite Party evidence affidavit goes to show that he worked up to September, 2007 and the 1^st Opposite Party paid salary up to July, 2007 only later he left the job, and was working as Welder leading his family with his hard earnings.   Since the receipt filed by the Complainant clearly goes to show that the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Office Manager only, we are of the considered view, that the Complainant failed to substantive his case.    Since, it is held that the 2^nd Opposite Party is an employee only he is not liable to pay his office dues to the customers.   On scrutiny of the record available before us, we sincerely feel that there are no merits in the case therefore it is liable to be dismissed. 

 

 

 

    

13.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.    No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 12^th  day of February, 2015.

  Sd/-                                      sd/-                                          Sd/-

Male Member                   Lady Member                                          President

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	05.01.2007	Receipted issued by the 2nd OP to Complainant	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-                                           

                                                -Nil-

   Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                             Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                    President