DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2023.
Filed on: 08/07/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 335/2022
COMPLAINANT
Ginil P. Vino, S/o. P.G. Vinodan. Pampras House, Piravom, Pin-686 664
(Rep. by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil, Karippaparambil Associates, HB 46, Panampilly Nagar P.O., Kochi 36)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s Skilotech Overseas, 1st Floor, Regent Court, Chittoor Road. Iyyattil Junction, Ernakulam, Pin-682 011. Rep. by its Proprietor Leo Davis
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is an unemployed individual with a Literature background who responded to advertisements by the opposite party, an overseas recruitment agency. The agency claimed to offer employment opportunities in India and had government recognition. They advertised recruitment for overseas jobs and cooperation with international recruitment agencies in countries like Singapore, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait. The complainant accepted a job offer for a product and equipment assembly divider position in a private company through the opposite party.
The complainant and their elder brother paid a total of Rs. 4 Lakhs as service charges to the opposite party, with each issuing a cheque for Rs. 2 Lakhs. The opposite party encashed both cheques but allegedly failed to fulfil its obligations. Despite repeated requests, the opposite party did not provide the promised employment.
To address this issue, the complainant sent a lawyer notice on 20.05.2022, demanding a refund of Rs. 2 Lakhs with 12% interest from 18.11.2020 until realization. The opposite party partially refunded Rs. 2,50,000 in instalments via UPI transfer to the complainant's father's bank account.
The complainant alleges that the opposite party's conduct amounts to negligence, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices. They claim that the opposite party's failure to provide the job and non-refund of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest constitutes unfair and restrictive trade practices.
The complainant seeks relief from the Commission, requesting: a) An order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,50,000 with 12% interest from 18.11.2020 until realization, along with Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for losses, damages, and mental and physical hardship. b) Payment of Rs. 50,000 as the cost of these proceedings.
2) Notice
The Commission sent the notice to the opposite party. However, despite accepting the notice, the opposite party was absent; therefore, they have been set as ex parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 9 documents that was marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A9.
Exhibit A1: True copy of the advertisement of the opposite party in the internet.
Exhibit A2: True copy of the job offer issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Exhibit A3: True copy of cheque No. 413808 dated 18.11.2020 for Rs. 2 Lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Piravom Town branch favoring the opposite party.
Exhibit A4: True copy of the account statement of the complainant with State Bank of India, Piravom Town branch for the month of November 2020.
Exhibit A5: True copy of cheque No. 935423 dated 18.11.2020 drawn on State Bank of India, Piravom Town branch issued by Sri. Binil P Vino, the brother of the complainant, to the opposite party.
Exhibit A6: True copy of the account statement of Sri. Binil P Vino, the brother of the complainant with State Bank of India, Piravom Town branch for the month of November 2020.
Exhibit A7: Office copy of lawyer notice dated 20.05.2022 caused to be issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Exhibit A8: Postal receipt No. RL581572375IN dated 20.05.2022 of Panampilly Nagar P.O., Kochi.
Exhibit A9: Postal acknowledgment card evidencing receipt of notice on 21.05.2022 by the opposite party.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The exhibits confirm two separate transactions where the opposing party received a total of Rs. 4 Lakhs. The first Rs. 2 Lakhs were paid by the complainant directly and are verified by Exhibit A3, the cheque, and Exhibit A4, the complainant's account statement. The second Rs. 2 Lakhs were paid by the complainant's brother, Sri. Binil P Vino, which are corroborated by Exhibit A5, the cheque, and Exhibit A6, the account statement of the complainant's brother. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant alleges that the opposite party's conduct amounts to negligence, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices. They claim that the opposite party's failure to provide the job and non-refund of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest constitutes unfair and restrictive trade practices.
We have heard Sri. George Cherian Karippaparambil, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submitted that the complainant is an unemployed youth who has completed the course of BA Literature.
The opposite party, presenting itself as an overseas recruitment agency recognized by the Ministry of Labour of India, is accused of failing to provide employment to the complainant despite having received Rs. 4 Lakhs in service charges. The complainant and his brother, attracted by the agency's claims of international partnerships and job opportunities, paid the fees, only to have the agency fail to fulfil its obligations. Despite a legal notice demanding a refund with interest, the agency returned only Rs. 2,50,000 via instalments. This has led to allegations of negligence, service deficiency, and unfair trade practices against the opposite party. The unchallenged evidence and the opposite party's failure to respond have necessitated the involvement of the Commission to address the complainant's financial losses and mental anguish.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
In the matter before this Commission, we have carefully considered the facts, evidence, and legal arguments presented by the complainant.
- Advertisement and Representation: The opposite party, in its advertisements and representations, claimed to be an overseas recruitment agency recognized by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. They advertised employment opportunities in India and overseas, which attracted the complainant's attention. The complainant accepted a job offer from the opposite party for employment in a private company in the Czech Republic. The opposite party, through their representations, induced the complainant to enter into a contract for their services.
- Payment and Non-Fulfilment of Obligations: The complainant and their brother paid a total of Rs. 4 Lakhs to the opposite party as service charges. Despite receiving this payment, the opposite party allegedly failed to fulfil its obligations by not providing the promised employment. The complainant's repeated requests for a refund or fulfilment of the agreement were not met by the opposite party.
- Negligence, Deficiency in Service, and Unfair Trade Practices: The complainant has convincingly argued that the opposite party's conduct amounts to negligence, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices. Their failure to provide the job and non-refund of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest constitutes unfair and restrictive trade practices, causing financial loss, mental agony, and hardship to the complainant.
- Ex-Parte Proceedings: It is pertinent to note that despite receiving notice, the opposite party did not appear before this Commission or file a written response. Their absence during the proceedings further strengthens the complainant's claims, as it implies an admission of the allegations against them.
Upon perusal of the evidence presented, including the proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A9, the Commission finds that the opposite party has indeed engaged in conduct that amounts to negligence and deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) and unfair trade practices under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
In light of the above analysis, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant's case is well-founded. The opposite party's conduct in this matter is highly questionable, and they have failed to provide any substantive defense or counter-arguments.
The opposite party has breached the responsible business conduct standards required by the Act. The lack of due care and skill that should be demonstrated by a responsible corporation is apparent in the actions of the opposite party. This situation underscores the critical nature of consumer rights and the need for awareness across all societal segments, regardless of literacy levels. The case is indicative of the extensive damage that employment scams can cause, impacting both the unprotected and the knowledgeable. The deceptive methods and substandard services of the opposite party have led to substantial damage to the claimant, putting his future opportunities at risk.
We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the complainant for failing to arrange the promised employment, an act amounting to negligence, deficiency in service, and engagement in unfair trade practices.
- The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the service deficiencies and the unfair trade practices committed, and for the losses, damages, mental, and physical hardship endured due to the opposite party's actions
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party is liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of filing this complaint (08.07.2022) till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of November, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A1: True copy of the advertisement of the opposite party in the internet.
Exhibit A2: True copy of the job offer issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Exhibit A3: True copy of cheque No. 413808 dated 18.11.2020 for Rs. 2 Lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Piravom Town branch favoring the opposite party.
Exhibit A4: True copy of the account statement of the complainant with State Bank of India, Piravom Town branch for the month of November 2020.
Exhibit A5: True copy of cheque No. 935423 dated 18.11.2020 drawn on State Bank of India, Piravom Town branch issued by Sri. Binil P Vino, the brother of the complainant, to the opposite party.
Exhibit A6: True copy of the account statement of Sri. Binil P Vino, the brother of the complainant with State Bank of India, Piravom Town branch for the month of November 2020.
Exhibit A7: Office copy of lawyer notice dated 20.05.2022 caused to be issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Exhibit A8: Postal receipt No. RL581572375IN dated 20.05.2022 of Panampilly Nagar P.O., Kochi.
Exhibit A9: Postal acknowledgment card evidencing receipt of notice on 21.05.2022 by the opposite party.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 335/2022
Order Date: 15/11/2023
