Date of Filing:12/03/2015
Date of Order:29/02/2016
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT
SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT
SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER
SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.474/2015
Sri Sreepathi Prabhu,
Aged, Major,
No.4300, 1st Main Road,
Subramanyanagara,
Bangalore. …. Complainant
V/s
The Branch Manager,
WWICS Ltd.,
Krishwi, No.2, 1st Floor,
Domlur, Old Air Port Road,
Opp:- IOC Petrol Bunk,
Above Farmacia Medicals,
Bangalore. …. Opposite Party
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant has filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred in short as O.P) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and prays for direction to the O.P to refund the balance amount of Rs.49,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till the realization and also pay compensation and also pay cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant submits that the O.P. had assured the complainant that their organization is providing Job opportunity abroad and provide postings in the organizations situated in Canada for persons having technically qualified and having a valid passport for procuring Visa with the Co-operation of the assistance of Companies/Sponsors established abroad. The O.P. also assured the complainant that this assignment would be completed in all aspects within three months of our making total payment of Rs.1,69,000/- to O.P. as professional fee. The complainant further stated he has paid the amount of Rs. 1,12,360/- vide cheque bearing No.581596 drawn on Citi Bank dated 17.7.2013 and also paid Rs.56,180/- direct deposit cash or net banking. The complainant after a lapse of three months, the O.P. could not get a placement abroad as assured by the O.P. The complainant approached the O.P. for enquiring the job assured by the O.P. after expire of the time, wherein O.P. had assured to provide placement abroad. The O.P. gave evasive answers and informed to the complainant stating that right now there are no opportunities and it will take some more time to get a placement for complainant.
3. The complainant made many follow-up but the O.P. informed that he has to pay further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards professional fee and expenses as otherwise it will be difficult to get placement abroad near future. Hence by sensing foul play the complainant demanded return of the above said amount. However, the O.P. refused to return the amount paid by the complainant. Hence on 19.8.2014 the complainant filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police against the O.P. when the summons was issued to O.P. by the police authority, the O.P. admitted having received the amount and thereby that the O.P. assured to provide placement abroad for complainant. Subsequently the O.P. contacted the complainant threatening with dare consequences and making token payment of Rs.1,20,000/- against the total amount of Rs.1,69,000/- paid by the complainant and obtained forcibly an acknowledgment as full and final settlement of all dues payable by the O.P to the complainant.
4. The complainant further submits that the O.P. has committed deficiency of service in not providing job opportunity/placement abroad. The O.P. has also failed to returned the amount paid by the complainant even though the O.P. has not provide any sort of service to the complainant as on date the O.P. is due to complainant the balance amount of Rs.49,000/- out of the total amount paid by the complainant. The O.P. is also liable to pay to the complainant interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization. Further the complainant issued a legal notice to the O.P. on 24.11.2014 for demanding the return of the balance amount with interest, but the O.P. has not returned the amount nor replied the legal notice. Hence this complaint.
5. Upon issuance of notice, O.P appeared through its counsel and filed its version. In the version of O.P. contended that, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of the consent letter given by the complainant to the O.P. dated 26.8.2014 and it was signed before the police authorities Bangalore, wherein which the complainant has compromised the matter and accepted an amount of Rs.1,12,500/- towards full and final settlement of his claim paid towards the retaining of the service of the O.Ps under federal skilled work category and the said amount of Rs.1,12,500/- was duly paid to the complainant before the police authority vide cheque bearing No. 074422 dated 29.8.2014 drawn on Axis Bank, Mohali and the same was enchased by the complainant and the complainant also filed before the police authorities as the matter has been compromised. Moreso, the consent letter also been duly signed by the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. O.P. also contended that out of an amount of Rs.1,12,360/- an amount of Rs.12,360/- has been paid as service tax by the complainant and which is totally non-refundable as the same was remitted to the government account. Thus an amount of Rs.12,360/- cannot be claimed by the complainant. Further O.P. contended that, they have performed their part of the contract right from the time when the complainant has retained the services and was duly advised and guided about the necessary documents but the complainant did not fulfill the requirements and there is no deficiency in service on their part at any point of time. O.P further contended that, the present complaint is hit by the Doctrine Promissory Estoppel and the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant by receiving the an amount Rs.1,12,500/- executed the consent letter by undertaking that he will not claim any amount in future whatsoever against the O.P. company. Once the above said payment is received by the complainant and amicably settled the matter towards full and final settlement for all times to come. The O.P. contended that, thus the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is fully applicable in the instant case and the complainant cannot refuse to abide by his promise made by way of said letter which is duly signed by him before the police authorities. All other allegations made in the complaint are all denied as false and on other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. To substantiate the case, the complainant and O.p has filed his respective affidavit evidence along with documents. We have heard the arguments.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to the
relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
9. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order.
for the following:
REASONS
POINT (A) & (B):-
10. At the outset the complainant approached the O.P. in order to avail the job opportunities and placement service at aboard. It is also not in dispute that the complainant paid Rs.1,69,000/- to the O.P. Furthermore it is also not in dispute that the O.P. assured to procure the placement at the abroad within three months.
11. It is the specific allegation of the complainant is that, subsequent to efflux of time to procure placement at abroad by the O.P and hence the complainant approached the O.P and enquired regarding delay for the required placement at abroad. Further alleged that, the O.P. demanded additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to procure placement and the complainant by noting the foul play of the O.P. demanded to refund the amount but the O.P refused to refund the amount paid by the complainant. On perusal of the rival pleadings of the parties it is also not in dispute, that the complainant also approached the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint against the O.P. However, it is quite clear from the material placed before us, due to intervention of police the parties, amicably settled the matter. It is also not in dispute, in pursuance of the police authorities, the O.Ps refunded the amount of Rs.1,12,500/- to the complainant and the complainant enchased the said amount and also executed the consent letter. On perusal of the consent letter dated 26.08.2014 it read thus:
“CONSENT LETTER
I Shreepathi Prabhu son/wife/daughter of Sheshagiri Prabhu resident of #4300, Ranganath Nilaya, Subramanaya Nagar B’lore availed the professional services of M/s World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., and their associated Companies for getting immigration to Canada. I hereby give my consent to receive an amount of Rs.1,12,500 i.e. One Lakh Twelve Thousand Five Hundred only towards refund. The settlement has been granted by the Company as a special case, although the same is not admissible under the terms of the contract signed by me with the company.
I hereby declare and certify that the settlement arrived at between the parties is of free will on both the sides and without there being any element of coercion or undue influence.
I further declare and state that I shall have no further claim, whatsoever; against the Company once the above said payment is received by me and the settlement referred to above shall be towards full and final settlement for all times to come. I shall not file any legal case or raise any claim against the Company for refund/damages ever in future.
Date: 26/8/2014
Place: Bangalore Sd/-
Signature
Name: Shreepathi Prabhu
File# 75251
Verification
That, I have properly read and understood the contents of settlement, agreement and append my respective signature of my free will and without any misrepresentation, coercion, undue influence or importunity on the part of other party. I am aware & informed that the refund will be processed in 30 days from the date of receipt of the consent letter signed by me.”
Date: 26/8/2014
Place: Bangalore Sd/-
Signature
Name: Shreepathi Prabhu
File# 75251
Witness Signature: Sd/-
Name & Address:”
12. The above said consent letter clearly discloses that, the complainant with his own conscious act executed the consent letter to the effect that, the said consent letter is free from bias, coercion and free from undue influence. Further the above said amount received for the full and final settlement for all time to come and the complainant agreed, he will not raise any claim against company/OP for refund/ damages ever in future. Once the complainant received the amount towards full and final settlement he seized to be the consumer and the contractual relationship between the parties is came to an end.
13. It is worth to note that, the allegation of the complainant is that the said consent letter was forcibly obtained on threat, if such being the case why not the complainant initiated the very same complaint before the Police. On the basis of the material facts it is clear that the matter is settled amicably on the intervention of the police and hence the contention of the complainant that he has signed the above said consent letter forcefully is lame of strength and holds no water. Hence the complainant cannot approbate and reprobate. The party is not allowed to approve and reject to take advantage of one part reject the rest. Equity suffers no person to approbate and reprobate the same deed. Hence, the O.P. rightly contended that, thus the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppels is fully applicable in the instant case and the complainant cannot refuse to abide by his promise made by way of said consent letter which is duly signed by him before the police authorities.
14. Viewing from any angle the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we answered these points A and B in the negative.
POINT (C):
15. Based on the findings given Point No.(A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 29th Day of February 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
Date of Filing:12/03/2015
*Rak
