S.RAPHIA-/ vs KATHOON BI

FACTS as culled out from the materials placed on record may in brevity be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

ONE Kathoon Bi, 1st complainant and one Khaja Moideen, 2nd complainant are respectively mother and son. The 2nd complainant, it appears, was in search of a job of a driver at Saudi Arabia. ONE S. Raphia, opposite party, promised to secure the 2nd complainant the job of a driver at Saudi Arabia and for securing a job she demanded a sum of Rs. 48,000/- to be paid to her as service charges. That apart, a sum of Rs. 38,000/- was also paid towards travel and other incidental expenses. Believing the same, the sum as demanded by the opposite party was paid by the complainants to her. The 2nd complainant of course was sent to Tehran and there he was given a job of a watchman-cum-gardener on a very low salary of 400 Riyals. He was also not quite acquainted with such a job. Within a month however he was not required by his employer and he was terminated from service. Consequently, he was sent back to India on 8.8.1995. On his return to India, the opposite party was contacted and she, it is said, admitted that she had failed in her promise of securing him a job of a driver and agreed to return the sum of Rs. 48,000/- received by her. In spite of repeated demands, the amount was not at all paid by the opposite party to the complainants.

The act of the opposite party, the complainant would say in not procuring a job of a driver at Saudi Arabia for an agreed consideration of Rs. 48,000/- would tantamount to deficiency in service on her part.

IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainants knocked at the doors of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint apart from filing a proof affidavit. On service of process, the opposite party entered appearance through a Counsel of her choice. Despite grant of adjournments many a time for the filing of a counter, the opposite party did not file the same. Consequently, the Forum below was impelled by the necessity of holding an inquiry into the matter. The complainants on their part during the course of inquiry filed Exs. A1 to A5. The opposite party however did not place any tangible material in the shape of documents.

ON a consideration of the materials placed on record, the Forum below recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and consequently directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 48,000/- (the agreed amount of consideration for procuring a job) with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. together with Rs. 10,000/- for damages with 12% interest for this amount from the date of the complaint besides awarding cost quantified in a sum of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of her choice namely, learned Counsel M/s. Hema Sampath, R. Meenal and Uma K. On service of process, the respondents/complainants entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel M/s. R. Muralidharan and T.S. Muralidharan. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. A. Palaniappan representing learned Counsel M/s. Hema Sampath, R. Meenal and Uma K., appearing for the appellant and learned Counsel K. Kumaravel representing learned Counsel M/s. R. Muralidharan and T.S. Muralidharan appearing for the respondents. From the pith and submission of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties the one and only question that crops up for consideration is as to whether the order of the Forum below is sustainable in law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

DESPITE adequacy of opportunity having been given, the opposite party did not file any version at all in projection of her case although she had engaged the services of learned Counsel M/s. Thamizhendhi and K. Hariharadoss to defend her. This apart, no tangible material in the shape of documents had also been marked in projection of her case. We are left with the case as projected by the complainants in their complaint ably supported by the proof affidavit filed and the documents under Exs. A1 to A5 marked. From a perusal of the complaint, proof affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant, it is crystal clear that the services of the opposite party had been availed of or hired by the complainants for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/- for procuring the job of a driver for the 2nd complainant at Saudi Arabia. Of course, the 2nd complainant was sent to Tehran but he was not given a driver''s job there instead he was given the job of a watchman-cum-gardener. Even he was unable to continue in that job as his employer had terminated his services and sent him back to India on 8.8.1995. It is not as if the opposite party denied the case as put forward by the complainant. We perused the two letters under Exs. A1 and A5. The opposite party admitted her liability to return back the amount of Rs. 48,000/- in view of the fact that she was unable to keep up her promise in the sense of her not being in a position to procure the job of a driver for the 2nd complainant at Saudi Arabia. On the face of the materials as placed on record, we are of the view that the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the order of the Forum below was not sustainable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot at all be expected to commend acceptance at our hands. The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We however make it crystal clear that the order of the Forum below as confirmed by us is required to be complied with by the opposite party within a month from the date of receipt of our order or otherwise it would be perfectly open to the complainants to invoke the jurisdiction of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal dismissed.