COMPLAINT FILED: 28-08-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 19-01-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 19TH JANUARY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2090/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.Babu Rao Chesetti<br /> S/o.Apparao Chesetti,<br /> Aged about 42 Years,<br /> R/at No.U-30, 13th Cross,<br /> Swimming Pool Extension,<br /> Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 03.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Arun.K.S<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Sri. Ashoka Kumar Pullemla<br /> HR Technical Recruiter,<br /> Verinon Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Suite 402, 403 & 404, 4th Floor, Saptagiri Towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad.<br /> <br /> 2. Sri.Pradeep Reddy, <br /> Group President, <br /> Verinon Technology Solutions <br /> Pvt. Ltd., 3395 N, <br /> Arlington Hts Road, <br /> Arlington Heights, IL 6004 USA.<br /> <br /> 3. Verinon Technology Solutions <br /> Pvt. Ltd., 3395 N, <br /> Arlington Hts Road, <br /> Arlington Heights, IL 6004 USA.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as OP) to refund amount of Rs.1,23,600/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and cost on the on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-<br /> 2. On 02-05-2006 OP3 invited complainant to join as an employee and work for them in their office situated at United States through their strategic development centre OP-1. After discussion with OP-1 through telephone, OP-1 asked the complainant to pay DD for Rs.1,23,600/- to OP-1. As per the request complainant being satisfied by the offer made by the Ops with a bonafide intention and with a lot of hope to join the firm had sent the basic documents along with a DD bearing No.954617 dated 03-05-2006 payable at Hyderabad for a sum of Rs.1,23,600/-. OP-1 assured the complainant that said amount will be reimbursed to the complainant after six months if he is appointed or it will be returned to the complainant if appointment is not made. Complainant sent DD through Blue Dart Courier to OP on 04-05-2006. The copies of the invitation, DD, Courier receipts are produced. <br /> <br /> 3. After sending the basic documents and DD to Ops the complainant is in continuous touch with OP-1 by making correspondence through emails and reminders. But OP-1 failed to respond properly to his emails. On 07-10-2006 OP-1 gave reply through email stating complainants case of H1B temporary working visa got returned for the financial year and the fresh quota will be filed in Ist week of April’ 2007 without delay further sought for account details for to deposit the amount in a week time. On 10-10-2006 complainant sent his reply mail stating he will not be interested in going to US. The copies of the mails are produced. <br /> <br /> 4. On 07-11-2006 complainant enquired OP-1 and reminded the status of his application nor refunding his amount. On 13-11-2006 OP-1 replied stating for the financial year H1B cap will be filed in the very first slot in April 1st week and requested the complainant to revert back with his interest. Then complainant expressed his decision to keep the option open for doing a job in US. The copies of the mail correspondence are produced. Complainant kept on reminding about the statue of H1B Visa application. After several reminders OP-1 on 08-05-2007 sent an email stating his H1B was being accepted by the USCIS Government. On 10-10-2007 OP-2 sent an offer to the complainant for the post of programme Analyst with OP-3 Company along with terms and conditions. Complainant accepted the same with a lot of faith in OPs. On 22-10-2007 complainant received an email from OP-3 Company stating his appointment for Visa interview is scheduled at 12.30 p.m. on 1st November’ 2007. Complainant visited the office of the OP-3 at Hyderabad and collected all the necessary documents required to attend interview at the American consulate at Chennai. On 01-11-2007 complainant attended the interview at American consulate at Chennai. The consulate referred the case of the complainant to their higher authorities for more information. On 05-12-2007 OP-2 wrote a letter to consulate general of United States of America, Chennai stating complainant is an employee of his Company and sought for issuance of multiple entry H1B non-immigrant Visa for him.<br /> <br /> 5. On 22-01-2008 complainant submitted his new application to American VFS office, Infantry Road, Bangalore along with Visa documents sent by OP-1. All of sudden on 09-02-2008 complainant received a letter from consulate general of U.S.A at Chennai stating his Visa was refused u/s 221 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) OP’s does not appear to be either able or willing to provide qualifying employment in the US. Complainant tried to contact the OP- 1 & 2 but all his efforts went in vain. There is no response or refund of amount paid. Complainant got issued legal notice on 07-07-2008 seeking refund with interest and compensation. Inspite of service there was no response. Copies of correspondences and legal notice are produced. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Under circumstances he is advised to file this complainant for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 6. On registration of the complaint notices are issued to the OP 1 to 3. Inspite of service of notice OP 1 to 3 remained absent without sufficient reason or cause. Hence Ops 1 to 3 are placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 7. To substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OPs did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. <br /> <br /> 8. It is the case of the complainant that he was invited by OP-3 to join as an employee and work for their Company situated at United States through OP-1. After satisfied with the discussion made with OP-1 complainant paid Rs.1,23,600/- to OP-1 by way of DD dated 03-05-2006 payable at Hyderabad. OP-1 assured the complainant that the said amount will be reimbursed to the complainant after six months if he is appointment or it will be returned to the complainant if he is not appointed. On receipt of the letter dated 07-10-2006 by the OP-1 stating that the complainant case of H1B temporary working Visa got returned for the financial year and fresh quota will be filed inApril’2007, complainant on 10-10-2006 sent his reply stating he wll not be interested in going to US. On 13-11-2006. OP-1 further replied for the financial year H1B cap will be filed in the very first slot in April’ 2007 and requested complainant to revert back. So complainant expressed his intention to keep the option open for doing a job in US. The copies of the DD, invitation correspondences are produced. On 08-05-2007 OP-1 sent an e-mail stating H1B was being accepted by the USCIS Government, and offered the post of programme Analyst at OP-3 Company. When complainant accepted the same with a lot of hope and faith in OPs, it was informed that appointment for Visa interview is scheduled at 12.30 p.m. on 01-11-2007. Hence complainant visited office of OP-3 at Hyderabad, on 01-11-20007 attended the interview at American consulate at Chennai. On 05-12-2007 OP-2 written to consulate general of U.S.A, Chennai, stating complainant is an employee of his company and sought for issuance of multiple entry H1B non-immigrant Visa for him. But to the surprise of the complainant all of a sudden on 09-02-2008 complainant received a letter from consulate general of U.S.A Chennai stating his Visa was refused and OP’s are either able or willing to provide employment in US. All efforts made by the complainant to contact OP-1 & 2 went in vain. Thus for no fault of his, complainant suffered mental agony, financial loss for over two years. Inspite of correspondence OPs failed to refund the amount. Inspite of service of legal notice there was no reply. If OP-1 is aware that it cannot provide an appointment it could have been fairly refunded the amount to the complainant in the year 2008 itself. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. <br /> 9. The evidence produced by the complainant supports the case of the complaint. Inspite of sufficient opportunity OP failed to refund the amount. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. Inspite of service of notice OP 1 to 3 remained absent without sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OPs leads us to draw an inference that OPs admit all the allegations made by the complainant. Hence for these reasons we find it is a fit case to direct OP-1 to refund the amount along with interest at 12% p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP – 1 is directed to refund Rs.1,23,600/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 07-07-2008 till the date of payment and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of January 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> NRS<br />