COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 25.09.2009<br /> DISPIOSED ON: 31.03.2010 <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31ST MARCH 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NOS.2274 & 2275/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2274/09<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2275/09<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> Sri. Marthappa Hegde,<br /> S/o Sadananda Hegde,<br /> Aged about 30 years,<br /> Manooru village,<br /> Udupi Taluk and District. <br /> <br /> Sri. Vazeer Hussain Mallar,<br /> S/o Late Asadullah Saheb,<br /> Aged about 42 years,<br /> Ahmed Mohalla Post Kaup,<br /> Mallar Village,<br /> Udupi Taluk and District.<br /> <br /> Advocate: <br /> Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. St. Mary’s Consultancy,<br /> Door No.1, 5th Cross,<br /> Opp: Fire Land,<br /> Vivekanagar Post,<br /> Ajipura Main Road,<br /> Bangalore – 47.<br /> <br /> 2. Smt. Mary,<br /> St. Mary’s Consultancy,<br /> Door No.1, 5th Cross,<br /> Opp: Fire Land,<br /> Vivekanagar Post,<br /> Ajipura Main Road,<br /> Bangalore – 47.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri M. Nagaraj<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Both these complaints are filed by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, each seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and for damages of Rs.2,00,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. <br /> <br /> 2. OPs are common in both these complaints, the facts and questions involved for consideration are common. In order to avoid repetition of reasonings and duplication of facts; both these complaints are disposed of by this common order. <br /> <br /> 3. The case of the complainants is they are the drivers by profession; OP is a consultancy which has given an advertisement in ‘Udayavani’ daily news paper, Mangalore edition on 21.11.2008 inviting the applications from the qualified drivers to do the work of driving in the foreign countries. It was notified in the said advertisement that remuneration of Rs.50,000/- will be paid apart from free accommodation, transportation, yearly vacation with return tickets and other facilities. The complainants applied for the said job and they were called for interview on 25.11.2008. OP informed them that they are selected as drivers and assured a job in the foreign country. OP informed the complainants that they are required to pay each an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-; accordingly they paid the said amount. Original passports of the complainants were collected. OP informed that the complainants would be sent to foreign country on 22.02.2009. On 21.02.2009 OP telephonically informed the complainants that the departure was postponed for one week. Thereafter, the complainants visited the OP on several occasions; OP started giving false assurances. The complainants visited OP requested nearly 25 times either to send them to foreign country as promised or return the amount which he has been received with interest. Ultimately the complainants got issued legal notice demanding the amount with interest. OP has replied the said notice admitting their liability promising to repay the amount within a month. The complainants borrowing the amount from friends and relatives paid the same to the OP during December – 2008 and February – 2009. OP has not returned the amount. The complainants resigned from the previous job. Hence the complaints. <br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version admitting the fact that these complainants applied for this job as drivers in pursuance of the advertisement issued and they were called for interview on 25.11.2008; they were selected as drivers and they were assured a job as drivers in the foreign country. It is also admitted each of these complainants paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the OP. It is also admitted that the OP informed the complainants that they would be sent foreign country on 22.02.2009; it is also admitted that complainants were informed that the departure was postponed for one week. It is denied that the complainants visited the office of the OP and requested to make payment. <br /> <br /> It is stated that the complainants were not sent to foreign country since the Government of Dubai has stopped the employees entry for time being due to recession. OP has made all arrangements and service and spent Rs.1,00,000/- to each to get employee entry permit (visa) and Air ticket to go to Dubai. The amount spent for getting visa and air ticket and other process not yet received by the OP. OP is ready to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the complainants, but not liable to pay interest and damages. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaints.<br /> <br /> OP produced copy of reservation confirmation copy of visa. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainants in order to substantiate the complaint allegations filed affidavit evidence. OP also filed affidavit evidence. <br /> <br /> 6. During pendancy of the proceedings on 05.01.2010 both the parties agreed for settlement for refund of the amount with interest at 12% p.a. The same was recorded in the order sheet and the matter was posted for settlement. Later settlement was not reported.<br /> <br /> 7. Arguments of the complainants counsel heard; OPs and their counsel remained absent. Hence taken as heard. Points for consideration are:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainants have proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of<br /> the OPs?<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- If so whether the complainants are <br /> entitled for the reliefs claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the documents produced and affidavit evidence, arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative. <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 9. It is not dispute that the OP-1 being consultancy through OP-2 given an advertisement in ‘Udayavani’ daily news paper, Mangalore edition on 21.11.2008 inviting applications to do the work of drivers in the foreign country. In pursuance of that advertisement both these complainants applied for a job of driver and then were called for interview by OP of 25.11.2008 and assured them that they are selected and they would be provided a driver job in the foreign country. Both these complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each to OP in consideration of the service of OP providing job to them. The date was fixed for both of the complainants to go to foreign country on 22.02.2009. On the earlier day itself OP informed the complainants that the departure to the foreign country is postponed for one week. Thereafter inspite of complainants several visits to OP either to send them to foreign country as promised or to repay the amount paid by them; OP has not complied their demands. <br /> <br /> 10. For the legal notice dated 26.05.2009 got issued by these complainants. OP is stated to have replied admitting liability to repay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of these complainants within a month. In the version filed OP has admitted the liability to repay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of these complainants, but denied liability to pay interest and damages. <br /> <br /> 11. OP has not produced any material to show that the Government of Dubai has stopped the employee entry for time being due to the recession. Without there being any material in support of that defence, we are unable to accept that OP has shown justifiable cause in not sending these complainants to the foreign country. OP by assuring a job in the foreign country received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from each of these complainants. The complainants mobilized that fund by borrowing from their friends and relatives; even they resigned their jobs with a fond hope of they being sent to the foreign country. Even OP has not promptly repaid the amount when the complainants demanded. The complainants have suffered mental agony and they were put to greater hardship on account of OPs attitude in not sending them to the foreign country or refunding the amount paid. The complainants proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In view of OPs failure to send the complainants to foreign country as assured or failure to refund the amount received; each of these complainants are entitled for refund of the amount with interest at 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Both the complaints allowed in part. OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.03.2009 till the date of payment and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to each of these complainants. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.<br /> <br /> This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2274/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in complaint No.2275/2009.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of March 2010) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm:<br />