Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 7th day of February, 2005
C.D.No. 127/2004
S.Asjad Zia,
S/o. Late Mansoor Ahmed,
H.No. 11-209-D,
Abbas Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri G.Nagaraju. Advocate
-Vs-
S.K.Singh,
Managing Director,
M/s Indo International Placement
Service, Sitaram Building,
K.Block, Off: RR-1, Ground Floor,
Inside the Compound,
Behind Shanti Bhuvan Hotel,
Palton Road, Mumbai- 400001. . . . Opposite party.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Hon’ble LadyMember)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,500/- collected as medical fee, Rs.15,000/- collated as visa charges, Rs.2,000/- as traveling and telephone charges, Rs.60,000/- as compensation for six months, Rs.15,000/- as future loss of income, Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is resident of Kurnool holding Mechanical Engineer Bachelor’s Degree (B.E. mech) along with specialization Diploma in H.V.A.C (Heat Ventilation and Air Conditioning). The complainant attracted by the advertisement in Assignments Abroad Times dt 27.3.2004, a fortnightly newspaper published from Mumbai, purchased at Kurnool, regarding sending of Visas for Bahrain for various posts including Assistant A.C. Engineer. Immediately the complainant telephoned to the opposite party to enquire about the post and revealed his qualifications to confirm his eligibility for the said post and the opposite party responded positively and asked the complainant to hand over his resume to one of his agent at Kurnool along with pass port and other required testimonials. The complainant inturn on 30.3.2004 sent through First Fight Courier Services the required testimonials which the opposite party duly received. Thereafter, the representative of complainant visited Kurnool and collected medical examination fee of Rs.1,500/- for getting examined by their own doctor at Mumbai as required for getting visa. The complainant as per the instructions got examined by their doctor Hira. C. Shah on 4.5.2004 at Mumbai and the complainant was informed that he was selected as Assistant A.C Engineer for Bahrain and assured Visa will be sent within 45 days if the complainant’s sends a demand draft of Rs. 15,000/- immediately after reaching Kurnool. The complainant on 15.4.2004 sent a demand draft through DTDC courier service and which was duly received by the opposite party on 17.4.2004. As per the assurances of the opposite party the complainant is eligible for the post of Assistant A.C Engineer with salary of 290 Bahrain Dinars and for OT (4 hours P/D) i.e 480 Bahrain Dinars per month totaling 770 dinars (Rs. 51,212 per month) with leave of 3 months after two years and duration of visa is for three years, subjective to renewal after three years and job was confirmed in Asay Shipyard Company, Bahrain. Ever after a lapse of six months, inspite of repeated telephones and approaches the opposite party did not send the visa as assured. Being vexed with the attitude of the opposite party the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice through his counsel and there was no response to the said notice. Hence, for the above said lapsive conduct of the opposite party the complainant was constrained to file this complaint before this Forum seeking redressal.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz (1) Assignments Abroad Times, Newspapers Dt 27.3.2004 (2) paper cutting of Ex A.1 (3) courier receipt dt 30.3.2004 for sending application to opposite party through First Flight Courier service enclosing five documents (4) Courier receipt for sending D.D. bearing No. 72726 dt 15.4.2004 for Rs. 15,000/- to opposite party (5) acknowledgment of opposite party as to the receipt of Ex A.4 along with said DD (6) telegram dt 21.9.2004 issued by opposite party to the complainant (7) bunch of telephone bills (8) Railway tickets two and fro (9) lawyers notice dt 16.9.2004 issued by complainant’s counsel and (10) postal acknowledgment of opposite party as to the receipt of Ex A.9, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.10 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice as to this case of the complainant the opposite party did not appear before this Forum, but sent written version through post which was received by this Forum on 15.1.2005, denying all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint and alleging any deficiency of service on their part.
5. The written version of opposite party on page 2 denies of publishing a news item inviting for sending of visas for Bahrain for various posts and denies of receiving medical examination fee of Rs.1, 500/- and demand draft of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and further denies of any assurance for the post of Assistant A.C Engineer to the complainant for 770 dinars per month, it also further denies the telephone conversations with the complainant. It further allege that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no relation between the complainant and the opposite party to come with in the purview of section 12 & 14 of C.P. Act,1986, as such the complaint is not maintainable and seeks for dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite party?:-
7. The Ex A.1 is the Assignment Abroad Times, Newspaper dt 27.3.2004, the Ex A.2 is the required paper cutting of Ex A.1, it envisages urgently required for Dubai/ Bahrain the various posts mentioned in Ex A.2 including A,C Engineers and the complainant being attracted by the said advertisement made a telephone conversation with opposite party revealing his qualifications and to confirm his eligibility for the said post and expressing his willingness to join the said post, to which the opposite party replied positively and the complainant send his passport and required testimonials to opposite party through courier service(Ex.A.3). The Ex A.3 is the courier receipt dt 30.3.2004 for sending application, passport, certificate issued by Gulbarga University, Diploma certificate issued Institute of Air Conditioning, Hyderabad and experience certificate issued by Allwyn to the complainant. The complainant’s application was accepted and he was selected for the said post. The opposite party requested the complainant to come over to Mumbai for medical checkup and the complainant paid Rs.1,500/- for the said checkup. The opposite party after medical checkup confirmed the selection of complainant to the said post and requested to send Rs.15,000/- as Visa charges after reaching Kurnool. The Ex A.4 is the courier receipt dt 15.4.2004 for sending D.D bearing No. 72726 dt 15.4.2004 for Rs.15,000/- to the opposite party and the Ex A.5 is the acknowledgment as to the receipt of Ex A.4 by the opposite party on 17.4.2004 along with DD. The Ex A.6 is the telegram dt 21.9.2004 issued by opposite party to the complainant, requesting the complainant to come and collect cheque as passport handed over on 7.9.2004. The Ex A.7 is the bunch of telephone bills made by the complainant to the opposite parties telephone bearing No. 022 23420319, the said telephone number is exhibited below the address of opposite party in Ex A.2. It envisages a number of calls made by the complainant to opposite party, inspite of several calls there was no response from the opposite party to the complainant. The Ex A.8 is the Railway ticket two and fro dt 5.9.2004 and 7.9.2004, this envisages the personal approach of complainant to the opposite party. Even after making several approaches and demands by the complainant there was no positive response from the opposite party, from the above said doscile conduct of opposite party the complainant was constrained to issue a lawyers notice dt 16.9.2004(Ex A.9), the same allegation such as sending the application for the post of A.C. Engineers for getting Visa and payment of Rs.1,500/- as medical exam fee and Rs. 15,000/- as Visa charges and requesting to send visa within a week. The Ex A.10 is the acknowledgment of opposite party as to the receipt of Ex A.9, even after receipt of Ex A.9 the opposite party did neither send the visa nor replied to the said notice.
8. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.10 and the complaint avernments and the complainant’s sworn affidavit avernments in reiteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite party by placing any relevant and cogent material on record. The opposite party except denying the allegations made by the complainant did not file any sworn affidavit or documents in support of its written version as defence. Hence, the opposite party miserably failed to substantiate their case and hence, there appears every bonafides in the claim of the complainant.
9 In the present case the opposite party inviting applications for the various posts as mentioned in Ex A.2 and accepting charges for sending visa to the selected candidates within 45 days did not kept up the said commitment to the complainant by avoiding to send visa to the complainant. Thus, the said conduct shows seepine indifference of opposite party towards their expected services to the complainant is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant consumer and there by the grievances of the complainant is accepted holding the liability of the opposite party to pay compensation for the deficiency of service and deficient conduct and the incurred expenditure of the complainant for having trips to opposite party office at Mumbai and several telephone calls made by the complainant to opposite party office.
10. The complainant in this case seeking refund of Rs.1,500/- as medical exam fee, Rs.60,000/- as compensation (Rs.10,000/- per month for six months if worked in India)and Rs.15,000/- as future loss of income, but the complainant did not place any material to substantiate the supra mentioned amount. Therefore, they are rejected.
11. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant, Rs.15,000/- collected towards Visa Charges, Rs.2,000/- towards traveling and telephone charges, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for suffered mental agony at the deficiency of service and deficient conduct of the opposite party and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the complaint. The opposite party is directed to pay the supra awarded amount within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court this the 7th day of February, 2005.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
