The complainant filed this case against the O.Ps u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986. The fact of the case of the complainant; in brief; is that the complainant and the O.P No. 1 has entered into an agreement; called as security deposit agreement; on 01/02/2018 and the complainant, deposited Rs.55,000/- to the Managing Director i.e. O.P No. 1 of the Linkwide Technology Pvt. Ltd., with the assurance of appointment as Trainer in the Skill Sector of the aforesaid company. The O.P No. 1 also assured that the complainant will get Rs.6,000/- as monthly salary (including basic, HRA, conveyance allowance, Medical allowance and other allowance) and all the legal laws will be applicable to the employee such as PF, ESIC, PT, IT after the probation period.
The further case of the complainant is that after depositing the security amount to the O.P No. 1, the O.P No. 1 issued the appointment letter on 03/05/2018. After issuing the appointment letter to the complainant the aforesaid company neither gave any training nor gave any placement to the complainant.
The further case of the complainant is that the Managing Director of the aforesaid company did not follow terms and conditions of the agreement which were made in between the company and the complainant. Then the complainant went to the office of the aforesaid company and asked O.P No. 1 about the agreement but O.P No. 1 did not give any acceptable / reasonable answer. Thereafter, the complainant approached the O.P Company repeatedly but they did not pay any heed.
Thereafter, finding no other alternatives the complainant filed this instant case before this Forum and prayed for an order directing the O.Ps to refund him his deposited amount of Rs. 55,000/-and for an award amounting to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for his harassment of mental pain and agony and for an order for litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-, inter alia.
Summons were issued to the O.Ps and they received the same on 01/10/2018. Despite they did not turn up and as such the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.Ps (vide Order No. 3 dated 31/10/2018). The O.P No. 2 is expunged on 31/10/2018 vide Order No. 3 and as such the instant case is proceeding against O.P Nos. 1 and 3.
In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit, written argument and some documents as per his firisty.
We have heard the argument of the complainant and perused the materials on record.
Considering the above pleadings the following issues are necessarily come out to arrive at decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s.2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as they prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of this case all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience as all these points are interlinked to each other.
Point No. 1.
This point is taken up first for consideration. From the averment of the complainant and the documents filed by the complainant, it appears that there is a security deposit agreement between the parties vide Reg. No. LTPL/SDAGR/020118/88 Dated 01/02/2018 and the O.P company (Linkwide Technology Pvt. Ltd.) promised to give the complainant a job. The O.P(s) the Managing Directors run the private company Linkwide Technology Pvt. Ltd. The status of the Linkwide Technology is a private company. Agreement has been made between the complainant and the O.Ps on condition that the O.Ps will provide job for the complainant subject to payment of Rs. 55,000/- as security deposit. The complainant deposited the said amount to the O.Ps (security Deposit Agreement and Appointment Letter). In this case the consideration is Rs. 55,000/- which is deposited by the complainant, to the O.Ps as security deposit. So, the complainant is the consumer and the O.Ps are the service provider. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is the consumer u/s – 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No. 2.
The complainant is a resident of Vill. - Mother Box Jote P.O. Leusipakuri, P.S. Phansidewa, Dist. Darjeeling, Pin-734434. The O.P No. 3 is situated at Cooch-Behar Zonal Office, Gunjabari More, Opp. of Cooch-Behar Polytechnic College, Srichhanda Building (2nd Floor), P.O. & Dist. Cooch-Behar. Whereas the complainant paid the security deposit of Rs. 55,000/- to the O.P No. 1 as such the cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction at Cooch Behar of this Forum (as per provision laid down u/s 11(2)(c) of the C.P. Act, 1986). The claim amount of the complainant does not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as such the instant case is well maintainable and this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Point No. 3.
On hearing of the argument and on perusal of the documents, it reveals to us that the Complainant and the O.P No. 1 both have entered into an agreement on 01/02/2018 on condition that the O.Ps will offer a job to the complainant if he make deposit of an amount of Rs. 55,000/- to them as Security Deposit. In terms of that agreement the complainant made deposit of an amount of Rs. 55,000/- to the O.Ps and the O.Ps issued Appointment Letter to him. After issuing appointment letter to the complainant the aforesaid company neither gave any training nor gave any placement to the complainant and the said company did not follow the terms of the aforesaid agreement. Rather despite several demands of the complainant, the O.Ps did not refund him his security deposited amount of Rs. 55,000/-. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps.
Point No. 4
Considering the positive results of the foregoing discussed points Point No. 4 also bears positive result favouring the complainant and that should be reflected in the Ordering portion.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, for ends of justice, it is -
ORDERED
That the instant case be and the same is allowed Ex-parte with costs.
The complainant Hillol Kowshik Roy do get a decree amounting to Rs. 55,000/- as his deposited security amount and he further do get a decree amounting to Rs. 20,000/- for his harassment and mental agony and sufferings, Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs i.e. his total decreetal amount is of (Rs. 55,000/- plus Rs. 20,000/- plus Rs. 5,000/-.) Rs. 80,000/- (Eighty Thousand).
The O.P No. 1 Sri Prasanta Garai, Managing Director of Linkwide Technology Pvt. Ltd., 57/3M/1, (1st Floor), Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Colony – 1, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040, West Bengal, Mobile – 7890009152, Email – And
His Zonal Office situated at Cooch-Behar Zonal Office, Gunjabari Opp. of Cooch-Behar Polytechnic College, SRICHHANDA Building (2nd Floor), P.O. & Dist. – Cooch-Behar, Pin – 736101 is hereby directed to pay the aforesaid decreetal amount to the complainant, Sri Jyotirmay Debnath, S/O – Chaitu Debnath, Vill. – Chuniatuli, P.O. – Phansidewa, P.S. – Phansidewa, Dist. – Darjeeling, Pin – 734434 within 30 (thirty) days from this day failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this decree into execution according to law.
In case of realization of the decreetal dues through execution the complainant be entitled to 8 percent interest per annum on the decreetal dues from the date of filing of this case from 12/09/2018 till liquidation of the entire decreetal dues.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or hand over forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this Final Order/Judgement also available at www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
