FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this case U/s 35 of the CP Act, 2019.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant visited the office of the OP situated at Mumbai and entered into an agreement (MOU) with details of package in respect of his career and sent his testimonials in respect of educational qualification to the OP and received an email from the OP confirming his eligible for getting job in Canada and asked him for required money to get their service. Being convinced by the proposal of the OP, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the OP through electronic money transfer mode for the first payment and received a invoice number being AC0812 dated 18.04.2022 and later on the petitioner again sent an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- to the OP through electronic money transfer mode for processing his visa application and received an invoice being No. ACD823 dated 10.06.2022.
It is further stated by the complainant that the MOU providing the details of job which the OP provided to the complainant had an account of Rs. 7,00,000/- only mentioned as total cost of service of arranging job aboard as mentioned therein. Out of Rs. 7,00,000/-, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- in total to the OP in two installment as mentioned above and supposed to balance amount after receiving the job visa.
On receipt of Rs. 3,80,000/- from the complainant, the OP provided him unique ID and log in Pass Word under SIMP programme through which the complainant could check his application status thereafter the OP provided the complainant visit Visa instead of Job visa which is fraudulent act of the OP thereafter the complainant enquired about the job vacancy from Canada company who is named and addressed provided to him by the OP and was shocked to know that the Canada company revealed that the complainant they do not know the OP neither do the OP collectively with the OP or not they have any existing vacancy. Thereafter, the complainant immediately contacted with the OP and sent legal notice through his notice to the OP through his lawyer and received a reply of the OP through their conducting advocate mentioned false statement that the educational certificate provided by the complainant was not up to requirement. Moreover, the OP defy to refund the amount paid by the complainant thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint at the local PS. Hence, the case is filed by the complainant with a prayer to give direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.3,80,000/- paid by him for getting job and also give direction to the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service, mental pain and agony along with litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
From the materials on record it appears that even after getting notice of this case the OP did not feel any urge to contest the case and did not submit the WV, denying the allegation leveled against the OP, so the case do runs ex parte against the OP.
Under such circumstances the case runs ex parte.
In view of the facts as stated by the complainant it has to be considered by this Commission:
- Whether the case is maintainable or not?
2. Has the complainant any cause of action to file the case?
3. Are the complainants consumer?
4. Are the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All the points of considerations are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record as well as the facts and circumstances, and position of law it is found that the OP receipt a sum of RS.3,80,000/- in several instilments from the complainant assuring him to give a job in the state of Canada but ultimately the OP cheated the complainant and did not give any job to him. The complainant made contact with the concern of Canada who informed the complainant that they do not know the OP neither they have any connectivity with the OP. The Canada Co. further stated that they had no existing vacancy for any sort of job as stated by the complainant. So considering the unchallenged evidence of the complainant, the Commission do not find any reason to disbelieve the complainant and hold the view that the case is well maintainable in the eye of law and from documentary evidence as filed by the complainant it is established that the OP received a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- only from the complainant on several occasions and did not make any arrangement for his job in the state of Canada, which they assured the complainant.
From such evidence in exparte it is established that the complainant is a consumer and the OP is the service provider. It is also evident from the unchallenged testimony of the complainant that the OP did not give the Job for which it received a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- from the complainant an also did not refund the same to the complainant. Such conduct of the OP is nothing but the deficiency in service on its part which caused mental harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant. For such conduct the OP is liable to give compensation to the complainant.
In view of discussions made above, it is held by this Commission that through her unchallenged testimony along with the facts and circumstances of this Case the complainant could be able to prove the case against the OP beyond all reasonable doubt and is entitled to get relief as prayed for
All the points of consideration are decided and considered in favour of the complainants.
The case is properly stamped.
Hence,
Ordered
that the case be and the same is decreed ex parte against the OP with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The complainant do get the decree as prayed for.
The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,80,000/- only to the complainant as paid by him for the proposed job in question within 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP is further directed to give compensation of Rs.50,000 /- to the complainant for harassment, mental pain and agony along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within 45 days from the date of this order, i/d the complainant will be at liberty to execute the same as per law.
Copy of the judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal.
