DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB  : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 26^th  day of May 2023

CC No. 449/2017

Complainant

          P. Akshay

          S/o. Akhilesh,

          Padannapurath House,

          Palace Road, Mankavu P.O,

          Kozhikode – 673 007.

Opposite Parties

1. Pratishtha Marine Service Pvt. Ltd.,

        S – 172, Haware Fantasia Business Park,

       Sector – 30A, Vashi,

       Navi Mumbai – 400 075.

       ( By.Adv.Sri.M. Haridas, Adv.Bindu B Pandey & Adv. Baby Shyni.K.M)

2. Rixon

        Agent of Pratishtha Marine Service Pvt. Ltd.,

        Branch Office, G-143 B, Haware Fantasia Business Park,

        Sector – 30A, Vashi,

        Navi Mumbai – 400 075.

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT 

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The first opposite party is the Managing Director of Pratishtha Marine Services Pvt Ltd and the second opposite party is the recruiting agent of the first opposite party. The first opposite party is engaged in the business of Marine Consultants, Ship Survey and Ship Recruitment agents. The complainant was a student of Jeyanthinather Academy of Marine Studies, Marine Campus, Arasoor near Thisaiyanvillai, Tuticorin. The complainant had studied for Deck Cadet course in the said institute for six months. After completing the course, the college authorities introduced the complainant to the second opposite party and the second opposite party introduced himself as a man power recruiting agent of the first opposite party.

3. After initial deliberations, the second opposite party told the complainant that there was vacancy for Deck Cadets in several ships in Dubai and informed the complainant to come to Mumbai at the earliest to the office of the first opposite party. The complainant then contacted the first opposite party who told him that there were several vacancies for Deck Cadets in Merchant ships in Dubai and Iran. Both the opposite parties then informed the complainant that he would have to pay an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the first opposite party and Rs.45,000/- to the second opposite party. The complainant had transferred this amount to the account of the second opposite party on 01-07-2017. After payment of the amount, the opposite party took the complainant for medical examination to one Marine Medical Clinic.
4. As per the instructions of the second opposite party, the complainant stayed in Mumbai and both the opposite parties told him that he would be taken to Dubai at any moment for the job. As per the instructions of the second opposite party, the complainant further paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the brother of the second opposite party from Mumbai. On 14-07-2017 the first opposite party issued a letter to the complainant informing that he would be joining in the vessel M.V.Spectrum 5 at Bushehr port in Iran. This letter informed the complainant regarding the details of the flight from Mumbai to Sharjah. Till the time of flight the complainant was told by the opposite parties that he would be joining as seamen in M.V.Spectrum 5, a merchant vessel.
5. The complainant was taken to an office of a company named BMS located at Abadan in Iran. The manager of BMS company in Abadan told the complainant he would not be given a job as seaman in M.V. Spectrum 5 as mentioned in the letter given by the first opposite party. The BMS company Manger told the complainant that he would have to work as a labourer in the Dry Dock. The complainant then informed the manager of BMS company that he did not know anything about the letter dated 14-07-2017 issued by the first opposite party. The complainant informed the BMS company manager that he could not work in the dry dock since he did not know anything about repairing and painting of ships. The BMS company manger told the complainant that he had specifically instructed both the opposite parties that he needed labourers only in the dry dock and there was no vacancy for seamen at present. On the instructions of BMS company manager, the complainant contacted both the opposite parties and told them that he had been cheated by both of them and requested to send a flight ticket back to India. But they mocked the complainant and told him that they would never send any ticket to him and further told him to do any menial work there if he wanted to eat.
6. Since the complainant had no other choice, he was forced to work for fifteen hours in the dry dock without proper food or rest. The complainant had to work in these inhuman conditions for 43 days and with the help of Indian Embassy officials in Tehran escaped from Abadan and reached India on 27-08-2017. He informed about his ordeal to the opposite parties and told them to return the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- paid to both the opposite parties. Both the opposite parties initially refused to pay any amount to the complainant and finally the first opposite party returned the amount of Rs,2,20,000/- on 16-11-2017. The first opposite party then promised the complainant that they would contact the BMS company manager in Abadan and would get him the due salary of Rs.40,000/- which the BMS company refused to pay to the complainant. The second opposite party refused to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid to him, out of which, Rs.45,000/- was transferred to his account and amount of Rs.5,000/- which was paid to his brother.
7. The complainant incurred an expense of Rs.40,000/- towards travel, food and accommodation etc. in Mumbai and towards medical checkup. The complainant had to go to Mumbai on several occasions as requested by the opposite parties. The opposite parties very well knew that there was no vacancy for seaman at the very onset and made the complainant believe that there was vacancy in Abadan and made him to work in a dry dock for 43 days and the complainant did not get his salary and he had to live in inhuman conditions without proper food and rest. The complainant was further tortured by the BMS company officials from Abadan and he had filed a complaint in this regard before the Indian Embassy officials in Tehran.
8. The complainant was cheated by the opposite parties by promising job of a seaman in Abadan. Both the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service since they failed to provide the job as promised. They collected huge amount from the complainant and made him work as a slave. The opposite parties are bound to repay Rs. 50,000/- collected from the complainant along with an amount of Rs.40,000/- which is the arrear of salary due from BMS Company. The opposite parties are also liable to refund an amount of Rs.40,000/- spent by the complainant towards travel, stay and medical expenses which was paid by the complainant.    Besides, they are also liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and damages suffered by the complainant. Hence the complaint.
9. The first opposite party has filed written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. The second opposite party remained ex-parte.
10. According to the first opposite party, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Their office is situated in Navi Mumbai and there are no branches or agents in Kozhikode or anywhere else in India. No transaction took place between the first opposite party and the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable and is to be dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
11. It is also contended that the first opposite party does not know the complainant. They have not given employment to him. No amount was received from him or returned to him. They do not know the second opposite party. There was no dealing with the complainant. The complaint is a concocted one to tarnish their reputation. With the above the contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
12. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:

1) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

3) Reliefs and costs.

13. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant. At the time of evidence, the first opposite party remained absent and PW1 was not cross examined.
14. Heard.  Complainant filed brief argument note.

15. Point No.1:  According to the first opposite party, no cause of action for the complaint against them has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and hence the complaint against them is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.  
16. In this connection, it may be noted that the question of maintainability was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and our learned predecessors- in -office as per order dated 21-05-2019 in IA No.196/2018 has found that this Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The said order is not seen challenged. So this point already stands answered in favour of the complainant.   
17. Point No.2:  The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The specific allegation is that he was cheated by the opposite parties by promising the job of a seaman in Abadan and they collected huge amount from him. 
18. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext.A1 is the copy of the bank statement, Ext.A2 is the copy of the letter dated 14-07-2017 issued by the first opposite party, Ext.A3 is the copy of the Visa and Ext A4 is the copy of the contract of employment dated 14-07-2017 issued by the first opposite party.
19. Ext.A1 shows that on 14-07-2017 the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from his account. Further a sum of Rs.45,000 was transferred on 01-07-2017. Ext.A1 further shows transfer of Rs.2,20,000/- to the account of the complainant on 16-11-2017.
20.  PW1 was not cross examined and his evidence stands unchallenged. The second opposite party has chosen to remain absent and did not file written version. The first opposite party, though has taken a stand of total denial in the written version, they also opted to remain absent at the time of evidence. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. Exts A2 and A4 documents would belie the contention of the first opposite party that they have no connection or dealing with the complainant. Ext.A2 was issued by none other than the first opposite party. Ext A4 is also issued by the first opposite party and it mentions the name of the complainant. Thus Ext.A2 and A4 disprove the contention of the first opposite party that they have no connection with the complainant. The further contention that they have not received or returned any amount is also belied by Ext. A1. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Ext A1 to A4 documents. Gross deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved.
21. The opposite parties are bound to refund Rs.50,000/- received from the complainant. The complainant had to spend money for his travel, food and accommodation in Mumbai and he was put to severe mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  will be reasonable compensation in this case. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.  The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.   

22. Point No:3 :- In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:

1. C.C. NO: 449/2017 is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation to the complainant.
4. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
5. The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.1,50,000 (Rs.1,00,000 + 50,000) shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 26^thday of May, 2023.

Date of Filing: 13-12-2017.

                            Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

                    PRESIDENT                                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 - Copy of the bank statement.

Ext.A2 -Copy of the letter dated 14-07-2017 issued by the first opposite party. Ext.A3 -Copy of the Visa.

Ext A4 -Copy of the contract of employment dated 14-07-2017 issued by the first   opposite party.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  P. Akshay  (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite parties 

Nil.

                           Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                              Sd/-

                   PRESIDENT                                 MEMBER                                  MEMBER

                                               Forwarded/ By Order                 

                                                               Sd/-                  

                                                                                                                                Assistant Registrar.