Tripura

West Tripura

CC/8/2016

Shri Ratan Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Suman Debnath & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.N.Majumder, Mr.H.Sarkar.

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE  NO:   CC- 08 of 2016

Sri Ratan Das,
S/O- Sri Akhil Chandra Das,
West Nalchar, Near Nalchar H.S. School,
P.O. Nalchar, P.S. Melaghar,
    Tripura-799115.                ..…...Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Sri Suman Debnath,
Proprietor of Debnath Enterprise,
Maa Sarada Road, Barasat, Near Platform No- 5,
Beside Barasat Railway Station, 
42, Pioneer Park, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, 
Kolkata- 700124, West Bengal.

2. Sri Subrata Mandal,
Partner of Debnath Enterprise,
Maa Sarada Road, Barasat, Near Platform No.5,
Beside Barasat Railway Station,
42, Pioneer Park, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, 
Kolkata- 700124, West Bengal.    …..........Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________
SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Nepal Majumdar,
                      Sri Haradhan Sarkar,
                      Advocates.

For the O.Ps                 : Sri Shib Sankar Das,
                      Sri Swarup Bhattacharya,
                      Smt. Priyanka Sensarma,
                      Sri Surajit Choudhury,
                      Advocate.    
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  08.08.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by one Ratan Das U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that being influenced by the advertisement given in the website of the opposite party petitioner being an unemployed wanted to get job in the foreign countries. Over phone he consulted with the Opposite Party No.1, owner of the 'Debnath Enterprise' and Opposite Party No.1 (in short O.P.) gave him assurance to give job in the foreign country by providing Visa. On 02.02.15 name of petitioner was registered in the firm of Opposite Party. O.P. No.1 then asked him to pay Rs.2,40,000/- as required fees for providing job and Visa. Petitioner paid the amount and on telephonic communication sent the original passport, permanent residence certificate, ration card, driving license. O.P. arranged the job of petitioner as 'Driver' at Singapore but working Visa was not provided. For the want of Visa petitioner could not avail the  job. Therefore, the petitioner suffered a lot due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party being service provider. Petitioner therefore prayed for refund of the amount Rs.2,40,000/- and also claimed compensation Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for litigation cost.

2.        Opposite party, Suman Debnath and Subrata Mandal contested the case, filed W.S denying the claim. It is contended that payment was not made in this regard at all. Story of payment is false one. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the petition is maintainable and the O.P. failed to provide the service to the petitioner by arranging job Visa?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amount given and compensation as claimed?
    
4.        Petitioner side produced the original money receipt, bank receipt, Proprietorship of 'Debnath Enterprise', original appointment letter, original agreement, copy of Driving license, envelope by which passport was returned, which are exhibited and marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.     
        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the petitioner and also the evidence of Tapan Banik, Sanjay Sukla Das.

O.P. on the other hand produced no evidence and cross examined the P.W.1.
6.        On the basis of evidence on record we shall determine the above points.
            Findings and decision;
7.        It is admitted fact that the office of the O.P., Proprietor of 'Debnath Enterprise' is at Barasat, West Bengal. Learned advocate for the O.P. contended that payment was also made at Barasat by the petitioner. Cause of action arose at Barasat, West Bengal. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of the contention however O.P. given no evidence. 
 
8.        Learned advocate for the petitioner on the other hand argued that payment was made at Agartala. O.P. had a Branch Office in Tripura. All correspondence and delivery of documents was made at Agartala court compound. In support of this agreement petitioner produced the statement on affidavit of 3 witnesses. According to the witnesses O.P. has Branch Office at Agartala, Arundhutinagar. From the evidence as produced by the petitioner it is transpired that O.P., 'Debnath Enterprise' was doing business at Agartala. As the O.P. is doing business at Agartala taking money for providing services to the people at Agartala so this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the prayer of the consumer of Agartala. Accordingly, we consider that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this prayer for getting redress.

9.        We have gone through the copy of money receipt(Exhibit- 1 Series). From the receipt issued by Manager of 'Debnath Enterprise', Barasat, Kolkata on 04.02.15 it is found that Rs.1 lakh was received from the petitioner, Ratan Das by 'Debnath Enterprise'. We have gone through the money transfer receipt of the Axis Bank dated 19.02.15. By one receipt it is clearly found that Rs.25,000/- was sent to Suman Debnath, Proprietor of 'Debnath Enterprise'. Another receipt dated 19.02.15 same amount of Rs.25,000/- was sent to another person Subrata Mandal. By another money transfer receipt of the Axis Bank Rs.15,000/- was deposited in the bank account of Suman Debnath, Rs.25,000/- was deposited in bank account of partner, Subrata Mandal. Thus, in total Rs.1,90,000/- was paid to the proprietor of 'Debnath Enterprise'. Petitioner and 2 other witnesses stated that another Rs.50,000/- was paid by hand to Suman Debnath. But in absence of specific evidence such payment is not proved. We can not rely on oral evidence to support the payment of Rs.50,000/- to Suman Debnath in cash. But the documentary evidence clearly established that Rs.1,90,000/- was paid to Suman Debnath and Partner Subrata Mandal.

10.        Learned advocate for the O.P. argued that Subrata Mandal was not the partner of the firm, 'Debnath Enterprise'. So payment to Subrata Mandal can not be treated as the payment against 'Debnath Enterprise'. From the money receipt it is found that petitioner paid total Rs.50,000/- to Subrata Mandal through the bank account. Subrata Mandal is made party in the case as partner. In the written statement filed by both the O.Ps there is no whispering to support the argument of learned advocate of O.P. Nowhere it is stated that Subrata Mandal was not the partner. In para 3 of the written statement it is written that both are reputed man having power consultant services firm styled as 'Debnath Enterprise'. So, it is clear admission that O.P. No.2 was also related with the 'Debnath Enterprise'. In a photocopy of the paper however proprietor's name was written 'Suman Debnath'. But no evidence given to support that Suman Debnath was the sole proprietor of 'Debnath Enterprise'. Therefore, We do not find justification to support the stand taken by learned advocate for the O.P. In our considered view both the O.P. are the recipient  of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,90,000/- from the petitioner on the assurance that job will be provided to the petitioner. By mail Suman Debnath agreed to refund the amount received if the money receipt are shown. Copy is produced before us.

11.        From the Exhibit-1 Series it is found that job was provided to the petitioner in the Hotel and Resorts at Singapore. Appointment letter was sent on 03.02.15. Employment agreement and other papers also sent. But the working Visa was not provided. This is admitted and established fact. Without job Visa this appointment letter has no value. Petitioner can not join the service at Singapore without working Visa. According to the petitioner working Visa was to be provided by the 'Debnath Enterprise'. 'Debnath Enterprise' could not explain why the working Visa was not provided to the petitioner. For not providing the working Visa this appointment letter has no value.

12.        It is true that 'Debnath Enterprise' consultancy firm was not authorized to issue working Visa. They are to provide necessary help for providing this working Visa. What help they provided? Why the working Visa was not provided, not explained in the petition. Promise of the O.P. to provide the working Visa not clearly proved by the evidence of the petitioner. There is no papers before us to support that O.P. promised to provide job and working Visa in the foreign country. But from the appointment letter it is found that job was provided at Singapore Fullerton Hotel Branch but without the working Visa. This is half service & therefore, is considered deficiency of service.

13.        From the appreciation of evidence as given by the petitioner we consider that 'Debnath Enterprise' and its proprietor failed to provide due service to the petitioner. Only job was provided but no working Visa was given. Necessary help for getting working visa was not rendered. This is deficiency of service. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- and both the O.Ps are under liability to pay the amount. Petitioner is also entitled to get back the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- paid to the O.P. and also cost of litigation Rs.10,000/-. Thus, in total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.2,50,000/- form the O.P. both the points are decided accordingly.

In view of our above findings over the two points, this petition is allowed partly. We direct the proprietor of 'Debnath Enterprise', Suman Debnath  and Subrata Mondal to pay the amount to the petitioner within one month. If the amount is not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. 
                     

                      Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.