S. Radhakrishnan vs SANTOSH TRAVELS

THE unsuccessful complaint in Complaint Petitions No. O.P. 76 of 1992 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu the is appellant in this appeal. In the two complaints filed by him which virtually deal with identical matters, the case put forward by the complainant, briefly stated, was is conducting business as travel and recruiting agents published an advertisement dated 30th March, (Madras City Edition) in the Tamil daily newspaper ''Dinamani'' inviting applications for the posts of Plant Maintenance Engineer, Plant Maintenance Senior Technicians, Senior Rotating Equipment Technicians, Foreman and Mechanics for service in Kuwait and that in response to the said advertisement the complainant had applied for the post of Plant Maintenance Engineer. It is further alleged that on March 31, 1987, the complainant was interviewed at Madras by the representatives of the Kuwait employer M/s. KREMENCO and he was selected for appointment as Plant Maintenance Engineer. Pursuant to the said selection a contact of employment is said to have been entered into in writing between the complainant and M/s. KREMENCO at Madras on March 31,1987 of which Exhibit A2 is said to be a copy. It is the further case of the complainant that he was called to Bombay by the Opposite Party in June, 1987 and was handed over the travel documents for enabling him to proceed to Kuwait after collecting from the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of service charges and Rs. 350/- by way of expenses for getting his medical certificate. In spite of the complainant having requested for being furnished with a copy of the contract of employment, the opposite Party allegedly did not furnish one to him.

THE complainant''s further case is that he reached Kuwait and joined duty on June 24, 1987 on a salary of 350 Kuwait Dinnars per month. Less than a month later, on July 14,1987, the services of the complainant were terminated by M/s. KREMENCO as per their notice exhibit A5 which purports to have been issued under Clause (9) of the contract of employment. Representations made by the complainant to the Ministry of Social Affairs, Kuwait and to the Indian Embassy there complaining against the illegal termination of his service were of no avail. THE complainant then instituted a suit in the Court at Kuwait and that suit is said to be still pending trial there. He was deported to India on December 13, 1987. THE complainant sought to recover a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the Opposite Party by way of relief in O.P. No. 75 of 1991 on the ground that the Opposite Party had wrongfully failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the contract of employment. In O.P. No. 76 of 1991, the complainant contended that the Opposite Party was guilty of unfair trade practice in that it incited the complainant to enter into a bogus contract with M/s. KREMENCO and thereby put the complainant to heavy loss. On this basis, the complainant prayed for an order being passed against the respondent directing payment to him of all arrears of salary at 350 Kuwait Dinnars per month from November 1, 1987 till the date of completion of the contractual period of four years, along with all service benefits etc. The Opposite Party in its objection statement raised the plea that the complainant was not a ''consumer'' in relation to it since no service had been agreed by it to be provided to the complainant for any consideration. The respondent stoutly denied that the complainant had paid to it Rs. 5000/- as service charges or Rs. 350/- as expenses for obtaining medical certificate. According to the plea raised by the Opposite Party, it had not acted as the agent of the complainant and that it had merely inserted an advertisement in the newspaper on behalf of M/s. KREMENCO, Kuwait for which it had been paid by M/s. KREMENCO. There was no privity of contract at all between the Opposite Party and the complainant. The complainant had entered into a contract of employment with M/s. KREMENCO at Madras, of his own accord. The allegation that there was any ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the Opposite Party and the claim put forward on that basis for the recovery of compensation from it were stoutly refuted by the Opposite Party.

No oral evidence was adduced in the case by either side. The State Commission discussed in detail the documentary evidence produced before it and came to the conclusion that the complainant had not hired the service of the Opposite Party and there was also no evidence to show that the Opposite Party had rendered any service to the complainant. It was further found that there was nothing to prove that the complainant had paid any money to the Opposite Party and that there was also no shred of evidence to establish that any fraud or misrepresentation had been practiced by the Opposite Party against the complainant. According to the findings of the State Commission the complainant who is an educated person had voluntarily and with his eyes wide open entered into a contract of employment with M/s. KREMENCO evidenced by the Exhibit A2 and hence it was not therefore open to him to plead ignorance on its contents. The State Commission also held that the complainant''s services having been terminated in Kuwait on November 14, 1987 and his deportation to India having taken place on December 13,1987 the complainant petitions filed in May, 1991 were clearly barred by time.

NOTWITHSTANDING the strenuous efforts made by the appellant to challenge the correctness of the aforesaid findings entered by the State Commission, we do not find any reason at all to interfere with any of the conclusions recorded by the State Commission. As rightly pointed out by the State Commission the advertisement relied on by the complainant was published in the ''Dinamani'' daily of March 30, 1987 whereas the interview and selection of the complainant took place at Madras on the very next day namely, March 31, 1987. The probability is that the complainant had applied much earlier and had been called for interview in pursuance of such an application because it is difficult to believe that if he had applied only pursuant to the advertisement which appeared on March 30, 1987, his application would have been processed and considered and he would have been called for interview on the very next day. Whatever that may be, in the absence of the complainant having given any sworn testimony before the State Commission in support of his allegations that he had paid Rs. 5,000/- to the Opposite Party as service charges and since no documentary evidence of any kind has been produced by the complainant to substantiate, the said allegation, the State Commission was perfectly justified in holding that the complainant had not hired for consideration the service of the Opposite Party so as to entitle him to maintain the complaint on the ground of alleged deficiency in service. We are also in complete agreement with the reasoning of the State Commission that since the complainant is well versed in English, it is impossible to believe that he did not go through the contract of employe ment evidence by Exhibit A2 before he signed it. The claim made against the Opposite Party for compensation on the ground of non furnishing of a copy of the contract was rightly rejected by the State Commission. The State Commission has recorded a finding that since the Opposite Party is having its place of business at Bombay outside the jurisdiction, el the State Commission, Tamil Nadu and since even, according to the complainant all services like furnishing of travel documents, medical certificate etc. had been rendered by the Opposite Party at Bombay, the complaint should have been instituted only before the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay. We do not however consider it necessary to enter into a discussion of this question since on the merits of the case, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the State Commission that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

THE last finding recorded by the State Commission on the question of limitation is manifestly unassailable. THE complainant''s services had been terminated in Kuwait on November 14,1987. His right to sue for compensation on the ground of such wrongful termination accrued on that date and any claim for relief in respect thereof should have been filed within three years there from. THE complainant was deported from Kuwait to India on December 13,1987. Even if it is to be assumed that this gave him a fresh starting point of limitation, the complaint petition should have been filed , before December 13, 1990. But that was not done. THE two complaints were filed by the appellant only in May, 1991, by which time the cause of action had clearly become barred by limitation. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we confirm the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss this appeal. THEre will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.