Order No. 18 dt. 24/04/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant in order to have a job approached the opposite parties for engagement of service through package system on payment of consideration. The complainant signed the said agreement for Gold Package Scheme for settlement of service to other country. After pursuing all the educational qualifications of the complainant the o.p.no.1 informed the complainant that as per of his education and experience he was qualifying for the immigration to Australia. The complainant was further informed that he would get salary AUS $5,000/-. The complainant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- which was paid by the complainant on 10.04.2009. The complainant again paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 17.04.2009. After accepting such amount the o.ps further demanded an amount of U.S.Dollars 1,300/-. The complainant paid the said US Dollar. After waiting for some period since no communication was being available from the o.ps. the complainant wrote a letter on 03.03.2010 to the o.ps. The complainant was informed that there was some immigration problem and the amount would be refunded after Diwali. After the lapse of four years the o.ps agreed to refund an amount of US Dollars 700 on 20.11.2013. The complainant in spite of demanding the further amount of the said amount paid by him, but the o.ps refused to pay the said amount for which the complainant has prayed for refund of the amount paid by him to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and US $1300 and compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and litigation cost Rs.20,000/-.
The o.p.nos 1 and 2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that as per Clause 2(a) of the said contract the complainant was required to submit the complete documents within 30 days but the complainant failed to do so. The complainant was at his own fault and as per the clause of non-submission of the document, voluntarily withdrawal and its interest as per Clause 2a, 10 and 11 of the contract signed with M/s WWICS Ltd complainant is not entitled to any refund and the case is to be dismissed accordingly.
O.p no.3 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated by the o.p.no.3 that from the allegation of the complainant it appears that the entire allegation was against the o.p. nos. 1 and 2. The o.p.no.3 is a Foreign Exchange Dealer and merely converted payment made by the complainant in Indian Currency into U.S. Dollar in the form of demand draft payable to 3rd party i.e Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai. O.p.no.3 has not rendered any service to the complainant for which no allegation can be made against the said o.p. for deficiency in service. In view of the said fact the o.p.no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :
- Whether the complainant entered into an agreement with the o.p.nos.1 and 2;
- Whether the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- and also paid an amount AUS $1300;
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.nos.1 & 2;
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that on the basis of an advertisement issued by o.p.nos. 1 & 2. The complainant in order to have an employment in abroad country entered into contract with the o.p. 1 & 2. As per the requirement of those o.ps the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- and also paid $1300. The complainant subsequently failed to get any response from the o.ps to have an employment in Australia which the o.p.1 and 2 assured the complainant that he would be provided an employment there but in spite of such assurance and payment of requisite amount and with the lapse of several months, the complainant was not provided with an employment in Australia or any abroad countries. While the complainant realised that he has been deceived by the o.p.nos. 1 & 2. he demanded the said amount but on some pretext or other the complainant denied to refund the said amount for which the complainant had to file this case praying for reliefs.
O.p.nos. 1&2 argued that the complainant himself was at fault and as per the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties the complainant failed to provide some information within 30 days for which the o.p.nos. 1&2 did not proceed further. Since the complainant was at fault therefore he cannot give any blame upon the o.p.nos.1&2 for deficiency in service. Accordingly o.p.nos. 1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Ld lawyer for the o.p.3 argued that on receiving the cash amount the o.p.no.3 provided the foreign exchange being dealer of foreign exchange and therefore the question of deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.no.3 never arose and accordingly o.p.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it is not disputed that on being attracted with an advertisement published by the o.p.1 and 2 the complainant applied to them for getting an employment in abroad. After getting the information of the qualification and experience of the complainant he was assured that he will be provided with the job in Australia with the salary of AUS$5,000/-. After getting such positive assurance by the o.p.nos.1 and 2 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in two installments along with AUS$1300. After receiving the cash amount while the complainant found that no positive action was taken the complainant realized that he was deceived by the o.p..nos 1 &2 and demanded the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with AUS $ 1300/-. Though the U.S.Dollar 700 was refunded but the amount paid by the complainant along with the balance US Dollar was not refunded for which the complainant had to file this case.
From the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that taking advantage of the employment crunch in India several fake institutions have opened in India and they assured the job aspirants to provide employment in abroad countries and for that purpose they take hefty amount from those aspirants. Subsequently neither the job is provided nor the amount is refunded causing the mental agony to such an extent that it is hardly possible for anyone to maintain the mental equilibrium. Here in this case the such thing has happened and the complainant was not refunded with the money paid by him which clearly established the fact of deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.nos 1 and 2. Accordingly we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the refund of the amount as well as compensation
Hence, ordered.
that the case no.14/2016 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p.nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed against o.p.no.3.The o.p.1 and o.p.2 are jointly and/or severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only to the complainant and AUS $ 700 only along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
