IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2010.

Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.159/08 (Filed on 24.10.2008)

Between:

Binu. B,

S/o. Bhaskaran Nair)

Mangalathu House,

Kochudayanchira Muri,

Mankodu.P.O.

(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan)                                              ......    Complainant

And:

1.     Trivandrum Air Travels,

Soorya Apartments,

Near Ayurveda College,

Thiruvananthapuram,

Rep. by its Managing Partner,

Krishnankutty)

2.     Somanathan,

S/o. Kesavan Nanu,

(Partner of Trivandrum Air Travels-

above mentioned)

Kovanchira Kizhakkecharuvil House,

Thadiyoor. P.O., Kadayar,

Thiruvalla.

3.     Vilasini,

W/o. Sadanandan,

Sibi Bhavanam,

Areekkavu, Maniyar.P.O.,

Vadasserikkara.

(By Adv. A. Ashok Kumar)                                             .....     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

          2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The complainant is an unemployed youth and a skilled Welder who seeking a job at abroad while he got touch with the 3^rd opposite party by a near relative 3^rd opposite party introduced the 2^nd opposite party to the  complainant as he is a partner of Trivandrum Air Travels and he will arrange a job visa for the petitioner on paying of Rs.70,000/-.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are near relatives.  The complainant sold his only landed property and borrowed from private financiers on paying huge interest accumulated the amount for visa.  As per the advice of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- through the 3^rd opposite party and the balance Rs.50,000/- was paid at the office at Thiruvananthapuram on 23.2.08.  After the acceptance of entire amount the 2^nd opposite party handed over a written agreement to the petitioner and assured that he will arrange the visa within two months.

                   3. On 1.6.08 the 2^nd opposite party issued a photocopy of visa and directed the complainant to make arrangements for travel.  The 2^nd opposite party assured the petitioner that the passport and original visa will be delivered at the Airport before the journey.  As such the complainant made all arrangements for the journey.  Then the 2^nd opposite party informed that the journey is to be postponed and he assured him that they will arrange another visa for the petitioner at the earliest.  But there was no response from the opposite parties.  After that the complainant contacted all the opposite parties several time for getting the money but their attitude was negative and they are cheated the complainant.  The acts of the opposite parties amounts to a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused mental agony and sufferings to the complainant.  The opposite parties are liable to return Rs.70,000/- with interest therefore the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to return Rs.70,000/- with interest along with compensation and cost.  The complainant prays for granting the relief.

                   4. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have not appeared or filed version hence they set exparte while the 3^rd opposite party has filed a version stating the following contentions:  The 3^rd opposite party is not a trader or service provider or any act of this opposite party within the purview of the C.P. Act.  The complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec.2(d) of the C.P. Act.  This opposite party is a housewife residing along with her husband and children.  She has no connection with the visa transaction or any deal with 2^nd opposite party.  The only snooze by which she is dragged in to the visa imbroglio is the fact that she happened to be a relative of the 2^nd opposite party.

                   5. The 3^rd opposite party has no prior acquaintance with the complainant.  The actual fact of the case is as follows:-  On 4.5.08 the complainant and two of his relatives, who subsequently acquainted themselves as the sister and mother of the complainant came to the house of the 3^rd opposite party, and stated that the complainant had advanced an amount of Rs.70,000/- to one Somanadhan upon the promise made by the said Somanadhan that he would arrange Visa for the complainant.  Subsequently after having no response from his side, they had come to the 3^rd opposite party’s house for the purpose of collecting his whereabouts, as the 3^rd opposite party was heard to be the said Somanadhan’s close and available relative in the locality.  The 3^rd opposite party then admitted her blood relation with the said Somanadhan, and gave them all available details about him.  After one weeks time the complainant again contacted the 3^rd opposite party and threatened that she should either disclose where the said Somanadhan was concealed himself or she would also be made a party to the complaint which he was going to file.  Subsequently on many occasions the complainant tried to bully the 3^rd opposite party with the intension of either getting the whereabouts of the said Somanadhan, or to extract money from her.  He filed this case when that trick was flopped.

                   6. This opposite party was purposefully dragged into the case with the intention of extracting money from her.  The case is not a consumer dispute and the reliefs sought for are purely of civil remedies.  Therefore, the third opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   7. The points that arise for consideration are:

(1)              Whether the above complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2)              Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)              Reliefs and Costs?

                    8. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complaint as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked.  Two witnesses for the complainant have been examined as PW2 and PW3.  For opposite parties, third opposite party has examined as DW1.  There is no documentary evidence from the part of opposite parties.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

                   9. Points 1 to 3: The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the second opposite party for arranging a job visa to him and he had issued a copy of visa to the complainant.  Second opposite party is the partner of first opposite party and a relative of third opposite party.  Third opposite party introduced the second opposite party to the complainant.   On the direction of second opposite party, the complainant made arrangements for journey.  Then the second opposite party informed the complainant that the journey is postponed and he assured that they will arrange another visa at the earliest.  But the opposite parties had not taken any arrangements for getting the job or they did not return the money received from him.  Hence he filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint.

                   10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant and two witnesses were examined as PW1s.1 to 3 and the documents Exts.A1 and A2 were marked.  Ext.A1 is the agreement-dated 23.2.2008 signed by the second opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the visa issued by UAE Ministry of Interior.  For supporting the complainant’s case, 2 witnesses were adduced oral evidence as PWs.2 and 3.  Opposite parties’ counsel has cross-examined PWs.1 to 3.

                   11. First and second opposite parties are set exparte while the third opposite party raised the contentions that the nature of the complaint is not a consumer dispute as per the provisions of the C.P. Act.  The third opposite party has no connection with the visa transaction between the complainant and second opposite party.  The only thing, which she dragged into this case, is that the second opposite party happened to be a relative of her.  There is no documentary evidence from the part of opposite party to prove their contentions.

                   12. On going through the evidences in this case, the materials on record show that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the second opposite party for getting a job visa for stretcher welder from Dubai and a photocopy of visa has been given to the complainant.  On a perusal of Ext.A1 agreement shows that the agreement was executed between the complainant’s father and second opposite party.  As per Ext.A1, the second opposite party agreed as follows:  “Xm¦fpsS aI³ tkma\mY³ FgpXns¡mSp¯ Icm]{Xw Xm¦fpsS aI³ _n\phn\v Zp_mbn Hcp strecher welder Bbn tPmen hmKvZm\w sNbvXn«pÅXmIp¶p.  1200 Znw IrXy amk kmedn In«pw F¶pw ]dªn«pÅXmIp¶p.  Cu hmKvZm\w sNbvXv  (70) Fgp]Xn\mbncw ssI¸bncn¡p¶p.  tPmenIn«msX 90 Znhk¯n\Iw Xncn¨p h¶m AXn\v tkma\mY³ D¯chmZnbmbncn¡pw”.  There is no evidence from the opposite party to show that the second opposite party had arranged a visa to the complainant as per the agreement.  For believing the complainant, he had given a photocopy of job visa ‘painter building’ to the complainant and after that takes any steps to arrange a job.  Moreover, the opposite party directed the complainant to make arrangements for the journey and he made all the arrangements.  But the second opposite party failed to comply the conditions as per the Ext.A1 agreement.  The failure of complying the conditions of the agreement is a clear deficiency in service and which caused mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences to the complainant.  The second opposite party is liable to compensate the same to the complainant. 

                   13. There is no evidence from the complainant that the third opposite party had made any offer for arranging the visa to the complainant or any payment was made by the complainant to the third opposite party for getting the visa.  Hence we could not find any deficiency in service from the part of the third opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the third opposite party.  The allegation raised against the second opposite party has not been challenged or the materials on record were not contradicted by him.  In the circumstances, we find a clear deficiency in service from the part of second opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the amount received from the complainant along with interest from second opposite party.  Since the interest of the amount is allowed, no separate compensation is required.  Hence, the complainant’s prayer can be allowed as such

                   14. In the result, the complaint is allowed, thereby the complainant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) as per Ext.A1 from the second opposite party with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till this date along with a cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only).  The second opposite party is directed to pay this amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an interest @ 9% per annum will be paid to the above said amount till the whole realisation of the amount.

                   Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23^rd day of July, 2010.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                                      C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                            (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)   :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)    :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :         B. Binu.

PW2  :         Bhaskaran Nair.

PW3  :         Ambily.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :         Agreement dated 23.02.2008 signed by the second opposite   

                     party.

A2     :         Photocopy of the visa issued by Ministry of Interior, UAE.       

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties :

DW1  :         C.N. Vilasini.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties    : Nil.

                                                                                      (By Order)

Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Binu. B, Mangalathu House, Kochudayanchira Muri,

                       Mankodu.P.O.

(2)   Krishnan Kutty, Managing Partner, Trivandrum Air Travels,

             Soorya Apartments, Near Ayurveda College,

             Thiruvananthapuram.

(3)   Somanathan, Kovanchira Kizhakkecharuvil House,

             Thadiyoor. P.O., Kadayar, Thiruvalla.

(4)   Vilasini, Sibi Bhavanam, Areekkavu, Maniyar.P.O.,

             Vadasserikkara.

       (5) The Stock File.