Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/52

Jugraj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

RK FX Service Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

14 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

CC No. :                      52 of 2018

Date of Institution:        23.03.2018

Date of Decision :         14.05.2019

 

Jugraj Singh aged about 44 years son of Jagat Singh son of Gurdial Singh r/o Village Bargari, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. RK FX Service Private Limited, through its Manager Director, Office at 2958/1, Link road, Samrala Chowk, Near Fly Over, Ludhiana.
2. Harjit Singh son of Thana Singh, resident of Village Nahian Wala, Tehsil Goniana, District Bathinda.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh. Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   Sh. Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking

cc no. - 52 of 2018

directions to them to refund the amount of Rs.6,70,000/- alongwith interest and for further directing them to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

2                                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant wanted to send his son to foreign country.OP-2 was known to complainant and he apprised him that he is working for OP-1, who has vast experience in getting immigration and it could manage the immigration of his son to Spain on payment of Rs. 13 lakhs. At the instance of OPs, complainant credited Rs.6,80,000/-in the account of OPs through his account in HDFC Bank against proper receipts. Amount of Rs.30,000/-, 15,000/-, 1,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- were duly transferred from the account of complainant to the account of OP-2 on dates 21.12.2016, 16.01.2017, 31.01.2017 and 6.02.2017 respectively. Complainant again transferred Rs. One lac to the account of OP-2. Thereafter, OP-2 took passport of his son and on 26.02.2017, OP-2 apprised complainant that visa to Spain for his son has been granted but OPs did not hand over any document to complainant and also did not send his son to Spain. Complainant made several requests to OPs to send his son to Spain, but they kept insisting for remaining amount and also gave reference of Nitin Malhotra and Gagandeep Singh that they are doing regular paper work, but to no effect. OPs neither send his son to Spain nor returned his amount of Rs.6,80,000/-deposited by him with them. Complainant also served notice to OPs whereby requested them to refund his entire amount, but all in vain. It amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

 

cc no. - 52 of 2018

3                                              The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.03.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                           OP-1 appeared through counsel and filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as complainant is not its consumer and he has no concern with OP-2 and OP-1 is not the agent of OP-2. Complainant never hired any kind of services from OP-1and present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged Nitin Malhotra and Gagandeep Singh have not been made party to complaint. He has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. It is averred that OP-1 does not deal with immigration work and does the work of foreign currency exchange approved by RBI. However, on merits OP-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that OP-1 never met complainant or OP-2 and he is neither known to complainant nor is he the agent of OP-2. It is reiterated that he does not deal with immigration work, rather he does the business of foreign currency exchange and he never received any amount of Rs.6,80,000/-from complainant. it is further averred that on 1.02.2017, Op-1 received Rs. One lakh in his account through transfer entry on the asking of one Nitin Malhotra and he received the foreign currency of 1485 dollars in said exchange under proper identification. Except this transaction, OP-1 has no concern with said Nitin Malhotra. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs is made.

 

cc no. - 52 of 2018

5                                              OP-2 also filed written statement through counsel and denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complainant has wrongly impleaded OP-2 as party and OP-2 has no liability towards complainant. Complainant has not impleaded Nitin Malhotra, Gagandeep Singh, Kamaldeep Singh Jossan as party to present complaint. OP-2 has no concern with complainant, rather it is just like mediator between complainant and Nitin Malhotra as OP-2 took money from complainant and gave it to Nitin Malhotra. Some amount was transferred in the account of Nitin Malhotra and rest was given to him in cash. It is averred that complainant wanted to send his son abroad and it was decided between complainant and Nitin Malhotra that Nitin Malhotra would send his son to Singapore. Nitin Malhotra completed all process for sending his son to Singapore, but thereafter, complainant insisted for sending his son to Spain only and due to this reason, he has filed the present complaint against answering OP. OP-2 submitted that Rs.50,000/-were transferred to the account of Gagandeep-DAV School on 18.01.2017 and Rs.1,50,000/-in the account of Kamaldeep Singh DAV School on 7.02.2017. Complainant has concealed the true facts from this Forum and every thing would get clear on appearance of Nitin Malhotra, Gagandeep Singh, Kamaldeep Singh Jossan in the Forum. Nitin Malhotra has returned RS.1,60,000/-to OP-2 and has promised to return the entire amount. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and all the other allegations alongwith allegation for relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

cc no. - 52 of 2018

6                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-15 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                           To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Tarun Sardana Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/6 and then closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Ld counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjit Singh Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to Ex OP-2/35 and then closed the same on behalf of OP-2.

8                                                                  We have heard the ld Counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the record produced by the complainant. It is observed that case of the complainant is that on assurance of OPs that they would send his son to Spain on payment of Rs. 13 lakhs, complainant credited Rs.6,80,000/-in the account of OPs through his account in HDFC Bank against proper receipts. After that OP-2 apprised that visa to Spain has been granted for son of complainant, but did not hand over any document to complainant nor sent his son to Spain. Complainant made several requests to OPs to send his son to Spain, but they kept insisting for remaining amount and also gave reference of Nitin Malhotra and Gagandeep Singh that they are doing regular paper work, but to no effect. Despite repeated requests and service of legal notice, OPs neither send his son to Spain nor returned his amount of Rs.6,80,000/, which amounts to deficiency in service and caused mental agony and harassment to him. He has prayed for accepting the present and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-15. In reply, OP-1 stressed mainly on the point that OP-1 does not deal with

cc no. - 52 of 2018

immigration work and does the work of foreign currency exchange approved by RBI. He does not know complainant and has no concern with OP-2 and it is not the agent of OP-2. Complainant never hired any kind of services from OP-1 and present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged Nitin Malhotra and Gagandeep Singh have not been made party to complaint. It is admitted that on 1.02.2017, OP-1 received Rs. One lakh in his account through transfer entry on the asking of one Nitin Malhotra and he received the foreign currency of 1485 dollars in said exchange under proper identification. Except this transaction, OP-1 has no concern with said Nitin Malhotra. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1  and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP-2 has also denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP-2 has no liability towards complainant and stressed that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as he has not impleaded Nitin Malhotra, Gagandeep Singh, Kamaldeep Singh Jossan  as party to present complaint. OP-2 is just like mediator between complainant and Nitin Malhotra as OP-2 took money from complainant and gave it to Nitin Malhotra. Some amount was transferred in the account of Nitin Malhotra and rest was given to him in cash. Complainant wanted to send his son abroad and it was decided between complainant and Nitin Malhotra that Nitin Malhotra would send his son to Singapore. Said Nitin Malhotra completed all process for sending his son to Singapore, but thereafter, complainant insisted for sending his son to Spain only and due to this reason, he has filed the present complaint against answering OP. OP-2 submitted that Rs.50,000/-were transferred to the account of Gagandeep-DAV School on 18.01.2017 and Rs.1,50,000/-in the account of Kamaldeep Singh DAV School on 7.02.2017.

cc no. - 52 of 2018

Complainant has concealed the true facts from this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                                        To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant brought our attention towards document ExC-2 which is copy of bank account statement of complainant for the period from 1.01.2017 to 28.09.2017 that clearly reveals the fact that on 31.01.2017 complainant gave Rs.1,50,000/-to Ops and Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- were transferred by complainant to the account of RK FX Service Private ltd. Further Ex C-4 to Ex C-7 are copies of cheques that further prove the grievance of complainant that he gave Rs.6,80,000/-to OPs in all. Moreover, Ex C-10 is copy of cheque dated 2.02.2017 worth Rs. One lakh drawn on HDFC Bank, issued by complainant in favour of RK FX Service Private Limited, which is self explanatory and OPs cannot deny that they have not received any amount from complainant. Ex C-11 is copy of legal notice issued by complainant to OPs, wherein he made request to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.6,80,000/-given by him to OPs for sending his son to Spain. Ex C-15 is also statement of account for the period from 1.03.2018 to 1.12.2018 that clearly shows that on dated 11.09.2018, 28.09.2018 and 1.10.2018 amount has been credited from the account of complainant to the account of Harjeet Singh/OP-2          

10                                   We are fully convinced with the evidence, arguments and documents placed on record by the Counsel for the complainant. There is nothing on record from OPs side to contradict the documents placed on record by the complainant. There is no doubt that complainant hired the services of OPs for immigration of his son to Spain. OPs failed to send the son of complainant to Spain also did not refund the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-received from complainant. When

cc no. - 52 of 2018

the OPs failed to immigrate his son to Spain, then, they have not right to retain the amount paid by complainant to them and they are liable to return the same to complainant. It is proved that Rs.30,000/-, 15,000/-, 1,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- were duly transferred from the account of complainant to the account of OP-2 on dates 21.12.2016, 16.01.2017, 31.01.2017 and 6.02.2017 respectively. Rs.1,00,000/- were again debited from the account of complainant for transferring the same to the account of OP-1. The act of OPs in not refunding the amount received from complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. The complainant has succeeded in proving this case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The Ops are ordered to refund the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant including litigation expenses. Ops are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:14.05.2019

                                        Member                               President

                                       (Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)