INTERNATIONAL OVERSEAS SERVICES Vs. D SUBRAMANIUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2003 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in First Appeal No. 774/1999, petitioners have filed this revision petition.

(2.) It is contended that petitioners are recruiting agents of a company situated abroad and that they collected Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant towards their fees for giving appointment to the complainant at Abu Dhabi. Complainant was given a job at Abu Dhabi and thereafter within a few days he was relieved from service and sent back. It is also contended that the opposite parties had given placement to several persons but placement was not given to the complainant even though they promised for the same. It was also pointed out that petitioner No. 2 came to Vishakhapatnam and took away his passport stating that he would be given a job and visa would be sent within a few days. Nothing was done. Hence, he filed C.D. No. 496/1998 before District Forum, Vishakhapatnam. The District Forum dismissed the said complaint. Hence, he filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the same and directed the petitioners to refund Rs. 30,000/- received from the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- which were spent by the complainant for staying at Bombay with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, the State Commission rejected the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 4,08,213/-.

(3.) In this revision application, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant because the amount of Rs. 30,000/- was received by them for obtaining visa and other facilities for the complainant for sending him to Abu Dhabi. In our view, it would be difficult to accept the said contention as a number of persons are prompted to go abroad by various advertisements and if they are thrown out within a few days, apart from the expenditure it causes lot of inconvenience to such persons. The order passed by the State Commission is only for refund of Rs. 30,000/- paid by the complainant by way of the demand draft plus Rs. 5,000/- which he had spent for staying in Bombay. Hence, the said order does not call for interference. In the result, revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.