Ld Advocate files hazira. Judgement is ready. It is delivered in open Commission.
By – Smt. Kabita Chatterjee(Goswami), Member
The case has been filed by the complainant Sri Hemanta Kumar Ghosh, s/o Late Bhaktipada Ghosh, Vill. Barborisha, P.O. & P.S. Kolaghat, Dist. Purba Medinipur, u/s 35 of the C. P. Act, 2019 against OP No. 1 the Managing Director, Optegic H.R. Solutions Pvt, Globsyn Tower Block-EP, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091 and OP No. 2 Smt. Ananya Mallik, Employee, Optegic HR Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The facts of the case to put in a nutshell as below :-
In brief, the facts of this case that the complainant is a qualified engineer having the experience works of various reputed companies but towards the end of the year 2018, he became jobless and was searching for a suitable job on contractual basis.
In the month of March, 2019, the opposite parties contracted to him through e-mail as well as over telephone and proposed him to deposit Rs. 6,265/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred sixty five) only as the Registration Fees to avail job and he, being a job seeker, deposited the said amount in the office of the opposite parties on 16.04.2019.
Later on the opposite parties demanded more money from the complainant at various times on various pretext. As he initially deposited some money to the opposite parties, he did not want his money went in vein. So, he was bound to trust the opposite parties and continued to make payment. As a result, he made a total payment of Rs. 1,75,335/- (Rupees one lac seventy five thousand three hundred thirty five) only in favour of the opposite parties.
After receiving the payment by the opposite parties, they avoided him on various pretext and because of the avoiding attitude after taking payment from him he asked the opposite parties to refund the amount paid to the opposite parties. But they did not take any steps towards that refund.
Finding no other alternative, he made written complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Bidhannagar on 17.07.2020 & also to the O.C., Electronic Complex Police Station, Bidhannagar City Police, Bidhannagar on 07.08.2020.
As per the initiatives of the officials of the Bidhannagar Police Station, the opposite parties came to the police station and acknowledging their liability, they promised to return back the entire amount taken from him with interest.
In lieu of the said debt/outstanding amount which had been taken by the opposite parties from him by way of unfair trade practice, fraud & misrepresentation, the opposite parties returned back the amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only at four instalments (two instalments are through online & two instalments are in cash) and the rest amount of Rs. 1,00,335/- (Rupees one lac three hundred thirty five) plus the interest is still now due to the opposite parties.
Several communications held by the complainant to the opposite parties but till now they have not taken any step for returning the money.
At last he sent a legal notice to the opposite parties by Registered Post through his Ld. Advocate on 22.11.2021 demanding refund of the entire amount of Rs. 1,00,335/- (Rupees one lakh three hundred thirty five).
Having no other alternative, the complainant has come to the Commission for proper relief. The cause of action of this case has been arose on and from 10.12.2021 when the OP promised to give the rest amount i.e. 1,00,335/- but still now due to the OP parties.
After filing the postal track report, it is found that OP No. 1 and 2 received the notice but has not appeared before this Commission. So, the case ran exparte against the OP No. 1 and 2 vide Order No. 8 dt. 26.09.2022.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and law ?
- Is the complainant entitle to the relief (s) as sought for ?
Decision with reasons
Both the points No. 1 and 2 are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.
- We have carefully perused the complaint copy of the complainant along with all papers and documents.
- Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that complainant is a consumer having grievances against the OP, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and law.
iii) It is evident from the evidence of the complainant and the materials on record that the complainant had prayed Rs. 1,75,335/- to the OP no. 1 The Managing Director, Optegic HR Solutions Pvt. Ltd. For providing him a job but the OP No. 1 though received the amount did not provide any job to the complainant and it is further seen from the case record that the complainant before filing this consumer complaint had lodged a complaint before the Bidhannagar Police Station on 17.07.2020 and after that the OP No. 1 was called for before the P.S. and the OP No. 1 admitted his guilt and instantly refunded Rs. 75,000/- into four instalments and he assured to pay back the remaining amount within a short period of time. But till the date of filing this case OP No. 1 did not pay the residual amount of Rs. 1,00,335/- and i.e. why we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get back the said amount of Rs. 1,00,335/- along with the interest @ 5% per annum which shall be calculated from the date of filing of the case i.e. 21.02.2022.
The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against OP-2.
Both the points are decided in the favour of the complainant.
Thus, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the CC/23/2022 be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP-1 and dismissed against OP-2.
The OP No. 1 is hereby directed to pay the rest amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,335/-(Rupees one Lakh three hundred thirty five) along with simple interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. 21.02.2022 till realization.
In addition to that the OP No. 1 The Managing Director, Optegic HR Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay of Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP will comply the above order within 45(forty-five) days from the date of this order, in default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.
Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the complainant and OPs 1 and 2 free of cost.
