DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 26/06/2018
CC/84/2018
Ramprasad N.R.
S/o Ramdas,
Prashanthi, Matha Nagar, Kavilpadu,
Olavakkode, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. B.Gangadharan)
Vs
Conformatic Business Solution Pvt.Ltd.,
W-88, Anna Nagar 2nd Street,
Chennai, Tamilnadu
Rep.by Managing Director
(By Adv.S.Sidharthan) - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complaint pleadings in short are that the opposite party had offered to make arrangements to get the complainant employed in one “Cloud Adic”, an American business concern. They also offered to avail H1-B visa for the complainant. Taken by the said undertaking made by the opposite party, the complainant transferred huge amounts on various occasions to the opposite party. But the opposite party had failed to provide the complainant with a job or visa as undertook by them. The complainant seeks return of the amounts paid by him along with interest, compensation and other incidental expenses.
- The opposite party repudiated complaint pleadings and stated that they had connections with the US firm Cloud Adic. It is true that the complainant’s name was brought up for an employment through Cloud Adic but his application was cancelled for the reason but he was holding only graduation in Zoology and did not have any IT qualifications. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- The following issues arise for consideration upon a perusal of the pleadings:
- Whether the complainant had ample qualifications for the jobs offered?
- Whether there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
4. Reliefs, if any?
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A5. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.B1 to B6.
Issue No.1
5. Even though the complainant stated that his application was considered for an employment in the US, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he was qualified enough for the post called for. On that ground we have to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case.
Issue No.2
6. As already stated supra, the complainant could not prove that he was qualified for an employment that was being offered by Cloud Adic and that he was the right candidate for the position. But the pleadings and circumstances of the case, as made by the opposite party, brings to fore one crucial and vital aspect of the business practice adopted and practiced by the opposite party.
7. Paragraph 2 in page (2) of the counter statement (version) reads as follows:
“The invoice bill issued by “Cloud Adic” is produced. The candidates for H1-B visa are selected through process of Lott and the complainant was selected through it also. But it was informed through mail to the complainant as well as the opposite party the selection secured by the complainant was cancelled for the reason that he was holding only graduation in Zoology and does not hold any IT qualification”.
8. When the opposite party, a business body, which stands in a fiduciary relation with the complainant herein, represents that they will make arrangements for a candidate to avail an opportunity in any employment sector, it is the sine qua non that the basic qualification and certifications of the candidate be collected and vetted so as to ascertain whether a candidate is a fit one for a given profile. Yet, herein we find a strange process through which candidates are selected through the system of “Lots” (chance, for all practical purposes). Then the candidates are made to effect huge amounts for various purposes. Thereafter their qualifications are vetted to see if the candidate fits the profile. The sequence as practiced is reiterated herein below:
1. Name is selected through Lots;
2. Informs the complainant (and those likely placed) that they are selected;
3. Fee and other amounts are collected; and
4. Qualifications are verified.
We are of the opinion that this is nothing but an attempt to usurp money by way of conceit. Had the intention of the opposite party been bonafide business deal, they would have studied the profile of the complainant first before the name of the complainant is included in the selection process and forcing the complainant to effect full payments.
9. Thus we find that the business practice adopted by the opposite party is purely an unfair trade practice.
10. Resultantly, we allow the complaint.
Issue No.3 & 4
11. Thus having found that the opposite party has resorted to unfair trade practice, the sole question that arises is how the complainant is to be compensated. We find that the complainant is entitled to receive the entire amounts that were fraudulently availed from him by the opposite party. Admittedly Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 10/3/2016. Thereafter Rs.3,50,000/- was paid on 13/4/2016. Further amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid on 20/4/2016. The complainant is entitled to receive the aforesaid amounts along with compensation, cost and interest on the aforesaid amounts. We order as herein below:
1) The opposite party shall return Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @10% per annum from 10/03/2016 till the date of repayment.
2) The opposite party shall return Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @10% per annum from 13/04/2016 till the date of repayment.
3) The opposite party shall return Rs.20,000/- to the complainant along with interest @10% per annum from 20/04/2016 till the date of repayment.
4) The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice.
5) The opposite party shall pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
6) The aforesaid order shall be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to receive from the opposite party an amount of Rs.500/- per month or part thereof as solatium till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of February, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of statement of account covering 1/3/2016 to 31/3/2016
Ext.A2 – Copy of statement of account covering 1/4/2016 to 30/4/2016
Ext.A3 – Email Communication dated 11/3/2016
Ext.A4 – Copy of invoice dated 4/11/2016
Ext.A5 - Copy of statement of account covering 1/5/2017 to 31/7/2017
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Invoice dated 12/4/16
Ext.B2 – Copy of statement of accounts covering 1/4/16 to 3/3/17
Ext.B3 – Copy of email communication dated 26/4/16
Ext.B4 – Copy of email communication dated 6/6/17
Ext.B5 – Copy of email communication dated 26/3/16
Ext.B6 – Copy of communication dated 18/3/16
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
