Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          As per averments made in the complaint, complainant/respondent had approached the petitioner for providing him the work permit for Singapore and paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards fee, after which he was told by the petitioner that he would have to reach Singapore on tourist visa and after reaching there, work visa would be given to him by their agent, Raveena Café Pte Ltd.  He was asked to sign Form No.14 for visa.  The ticket was arranged by the petitioner for which the respondent paid Rs.24,900/- to them.  Respondent reached Singapore on 14.9.2008 but no one from Raveena Café Pte Ltd. either met him or provided him work permit.  In these circumstances, respondent was kept in custody by the airport authorities of Singapore for one night and sent back on the very next day, i.e., on 15.9.2008.  On coming back to India, he approached the petitioner and raised protest for which a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was refunded to him with the assurance that the balance amount along with ticket expenses and compensation for harassment would be paid within a few days.  He also served a legal notice on the petitioner seeking refund of the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-, ticket expenses of Rs.24,900/- and the compensation of Rs.1 lakh for harassment, to which no response was received by him.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

          District Forum disposed of the complaint by passing the following order :

“The OP has refunded to the complainant only a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- out of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received by them.  They are, therefore, liable to refund the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The complainant has also spent Rs.24,900/- on his air fare, but it all went waste due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The OP would be liable to pay back the amount to the complainant.  The complainant has suffered mentally and physically in so far as he was detained and deported and his dreams of getting employment in the said country were dashed.  It certainly caused him mental, as well as physical harassment, for which also the OP shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/-.  The complaint is, therefore, allowed and the OP is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- + Rs.24,900/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.59,900/-, along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they would be liable to pay the said amount along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.2.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.”

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent having accepted the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- in full and final settlement, could not maintain a complaint and the fora below have erred in entertaining the complaint and in passing the impugned order.  He places reliance on judgement of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. – II(1999) CPJ 10 (SC), wherein Their Lordships have observed as under :

“In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admitted executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, mis-reprsentation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints. The National Commission however granted relief solely on the ground of delay in the settlement of claim under the policies. The mere delay of a couple of months would not have authorized the National Commission to grant relief particularly when the insurer had not complaint of such a delay at the time of acceptance of the insurance amount under the policy. We are not satisfied with the reasoning of the National Commission and are of the view that the State commission was justified in dismissing the complaints though on different reasonings.”

          Case pleaded by the respondent/complainant was that he had accepted the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on the assurance that the balance amount along with ticket expenses and compensation for harassment would be paid to him in a few days.  From the perusal of the Discharge Voucher we find that the respondent had not given a complete discharge to the petitioner.  In the Discharge Voucher, it is not indicated that the respondent had accepted the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- in discharge of full and final liability of the petitioner.  Moreover, as per allegations made in the complaint, he had accepted the sum of s.1,40,000/- on an assurance that the balance amount would be paid along with ticket expenses and compensation for harassment, which the petitioner later on failed to pay.  It was a clear case of misrepresentation.  The respondent had not accepted the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the petitioner by giving a full and final discharge to the petitioner.

          For the reasons stated above, we agree with the view taken by the fora below and do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by them.  Dismissed.