| Final Order / Judgement | IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM C.C.No. 115/2024 PRESENT SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER ORDER DATED: 30.09.2024 BETWEEN Varun Nath V., 31 years, S/o Viswanathan, Tholloor Vadakkevila Veedu, Edamulackal P.O., Anchal 691306. : Complainant (By Adv.Deebulal G.R.) AND 1. Sunitha, The Managing Director, GDGH Trading Pvt.Ltd., 2nd Floor, Neam Arcad Building, Vallikkeezhu, Kavanadu P.O., Kollam 691003. Email:gdghedv@gmail.com (From Akavoor Madam Laksham Veedu, Pallippad, Naduvattam P.O., Karthikappally, Alappuzha 690512. : Opposite parties 2. GDGH Trading Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by Managing Director, 2nd Floor, Neam Arcad Building, Vallikkeezhu, Kavanadu P.O., Kollam 691003. Email:gdghedv@gmail.com ORDER S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT - The facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant had been seeking overseas employment for several years. While browsing social media, he came across an advertisement from the opposite parties, claiming to be a recruiting agency offering work visas to Japan. Intrigued, the complainant contacted the phone number listed in the advertisement. The 1st opposite party introduced herself as the Managing Director of GDGH Trading Pvt. Ltd. She informed the complainant about various job opportunities in Japan and offered a work visa to Japan for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as their company was involved in manpower supply to Japan. The 1st opposite party invited the complainant to their office in Kollam for more details about the visa benefits and formalities. On 10-04-2023, when the complainant visited the office, he recognized the 1st opposite party as ‘Rakhi,’ who had previously been the Manager of Infinite Venues Overseas Study Abroad Pvt. Ltd., located in Kayamkulam. On 05-04-2021, while working with Infinite Venues, ‘Rakhi’ had taken Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant, promising a work visa to Malta within three months. However, the 1st opposite party, in her capacity as Manager of Infinite Venues, failed to deliver the promised service. Despite repeated demands from the complainant, both in person and over the phone, ‘Rakhi’ sought more time to refund the amount but never made any payment.
- The complainant was shocked to discover that ‘Rakhi,’ whose real name was Sunitha, was now presenting herself as the Managing Director of GDGH Trading Pvt. Ltd. After some heated discussions, the 1st opposite party convinced the complainant that the Rs. 30,000/- paid to her on 05-04-2021 for Infinite Venues would be credited towards the visa processing fee payable to the current opposite party. The 1st opposite party, acting as the Managing Director of the 2nd opposite party, agreed and promised to arrange a work visa to Japan for the complainant. Trusting her assurances, the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party, paying an additional Rs. 20,000/- as an advance. The agreement, dated 10.04.2023, stipulated that the 1st opposite party would secure the visa within four months, failing which an amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be refunded to the complainant. The complainant made regular inquiries regarding the progress of the visa processing as per the terms of the agreement. However, the 1st opposite party continuously provided various excuses and repeatedly asked the complainant to wait, promising that the visa would be arranged within the agreed four-month period. Despite the completion of this period, the opposite party failed to secure a work visa for the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant approached the opposite party seeking a refund of both the Rs. 20,000/- advance paid under the new agreement and the Rs. 30,000/- paid on 05.04.2021 for the earlier visa to Malta, which the 1st opposite party had received while working for Infinite Venues Overseas Study Abroad Pvt. Ltd. However, even after the expiry of the agreement, the opposite party refused to make any payments and evaded settling the amounts due to the complainant. The complainant is a consumer in relation to the agency, having paid the required consideration. Later, the complainant learned of an ongoing investigation by the police into the fraudulent activities of the opposite parties, leading to the registration of FIR No. 774/2023 by the Sakthikulangara Police, which revealed that the opposite party had cheated many innocent people by breaching the terms of agreements after receiving payments. The actions of the opposite party amount to a clear deficiency in service and constitute unfair trade practices. As a result of the opposite party's misconduct, the complainant missed several job opportunities and suffered significant mental agony. The complainant has incurred a substantial loss due to these actions, a loss that cannot be fully quantified in monetary terms. However, for legal purposes, the complainant has fixed the compensation at Rs. 4,00,000/- and is entitled to claim this amount as compensation from the opposite party. In addition, the complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 20,000/-, which the 1st opposite party received as per the receipt dated 10.01.2023, along with the Rs. 30,000/- received on 05.04.2021 as an advance for the earlier visa arrangement. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to refund a total of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. Hence, this complaint has been filed.
- The opposite parties accepted the notice and appeared before the Commission but failed to submit their version within the stipulated time. As a result, they remain ex parte.
- The complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P3. As the opposite parties remained exparte, the affidavit of the complainant stands unchallenged. Notes of argument has been filed by the complainant and this Commission heard the Counsel for the complainant. As the opposite parties remained absent, their part has been taken as heard.
- The following issues are raised for consideration;
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed.
- Compensation and costs.
- Points (i) to (iii): The complainant, seeking overseas employment, came across an advertisement from the opposite parties, who claimed to offer work visas to Japan. After initial contact, the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party and paid Rs. 20,000/- as an advance. Previously, the complainant had also paid Rs. 30,000/- to the same individual, who was then working for another company, promising a work visa to Malta. Despite repeated assurances, the opposite parties failed to provide the promised visa and refused to refund the money, leading to financial loss and mental agony for the complainant. The complainant claims a total refund of Rs. 50,000/- (for both payments) and seeks Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, lost job opportunities, and mental suffering. The complainant also highlights that an FIR has been registered against the opposite party for cheating multiple people.
- The complainant has been examined as PW1, and Exhibits P1 to P4 have been marked. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the deposition of PW1 and the evidence, including the documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P4, proves that the complainant lost a total of Rs. 50,000/- which was received by the opposite parties. By waiting for the promised service, the complainant also lost valuable time, missed out on other job opportunities, and endured significant mental anguish.
- The payment of Rs. 20,000 made to the opposite parties on 10.04.2023 is corroborated by Exhibit P1. Exhibit P2 is the receipt dated 10.04.2023 issued by the opposite party for receipt of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant while the 1st opposite party was working with Infinite Venue Overseas Study Abroad Pvt. Ltd. Exhibit P3 is the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party dated 10.04.2023, and Exhibit P4 is the copy of FIR No. 774/2023 registered by the Sakthikulangara Police against the opposite party. According to Exhibit P2, the opposite parties agreed to complete the visa process within a period of four months and acknowledged receipt of Rs. 30,000 for arranging a job in Japan. The agreement also stipulated that the complainant would not request to cancel the agreement or ask for a refund during the four-month period. Additionally, it was agreed that in the event of a visa rejection or delay, the full advance payment would be refunded within 14 days of the agreement's cancellation. Although the opposite parties appeared before the Commission, they failed to submit their version within the statutory time limit and therefore remain ex parte.
- The counsel for the complainant submitted that during the course of this complaint, the opposite parties had agreed to refund the amount, and the case was referred for mediation. However, the opposite parties failed to appear before the mediator, resulting in the complainant's evidence being taken.
- The documents produced by the complainant, along with the unchallenged affidavit, clearly substantiate the complainant's case. The opposite parties’ act of collecting the amount and failing to fulfill their obligations under the agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice, leading to a deficiency in service for which the complainant must be compensated.
- In cases involving service deficiencies, the mental agony and suffering of the complainant are significant factors in determining compensation, as they often extend beyond financial loss. In the present case, the opposite parties’ failure to fulfill their contractual obligations caused the complainant substantial emotional distress and personal suffering. After initial contact, the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party and paid Rs. 20,000/- as an advance on 10.04.2023 for a work visa to Japan. Previously, on 05.04.2021, the complainant had paid Rs. 30,000/- to the same individual, who was then working for another company, promising a work visa to Malta. However, the opposite party failed to fulfill either promise. When the opposite parties failed to provide this service, despite repeated inquiries and the extension of the waiting period, the complainant not only faced financial loss but also endured considerable mental anguish. The promise of a job abroad likely represented a life-changing opportunity for the complainant, and its denial resulted in lost career prospects and personal frustration. Furthermore, the failure to refund the advance payment within the stipulated period exacerbated the situation. The uncertainty created by the opposite parties’ continuous delays and excuses caused significant stress, leaving the complainant in a state of prolonged anxiety, unsure whether he would ever receive his promised visa or get back his money. Such delays in resolution denied the complainant the chance to explore other employment options during this time, leading to further emotional strain. This mental suffering, compounded by the breach of trust, was a direct consequence of the opposite parties’ unfair trade practices and deficient service. It cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms, as the loss of time, missed opportunities, and the emotional toll are intangible but very real forms of damage. In light of this, a compensation of Rs. 25,000 is found reasonable to mitigate the emotional harm and mental suffering endured by the complainant due to the opposite parties’ deficient service.
- In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with 12% interest from 05.04.2021 until realization, and Rs. 20,000/- with 12% interest from 10.04.2023 until realization. Additionally, the opposite parties shall pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 towards the costs of proceedings. Time for compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which execution proceedings can be initiated.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30th day of September 2024. Sd/- S.K.SREELA PRESIDENT Sd/- STANLY HAROLD MEMBER Forwarded/by Order Senior superintendent INDEX Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:- PW1 : Varun Nath V. Documents marked for the complainant Ext.P1 : Receipt dated 10.04.2023 issued by the opposite party Ext.P2 : The agreement between the complainant and the opposite party dated 05.04.2021 Ext.P3 : The agreement between the complainant and the opposite party dated 10.04.2023 Ext.P4 : Copy of the FIR No.774/2023 registered by Sakthikulangara Police against the opposite party. Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil Sd/- PRESIDENT | |
