1. THIS Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been preferred by a senior executive of Spicejet Ltd. (for short "the Company") (as impleaded in the Complaint) against order dated 7.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 752 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the order, dated 29.11.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 547 of 2011, whereby, while allowing the Complaint, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000, deposited by her as training fee with interest @ 9% p.a., along with a further sum of Rs. 3,000 as compensation for the mental agony suffered by her on account of non -refund of the said amount. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Company invited applications for recruitment of "Trainee Cabin Attendants" from across the Country. Candidates above the age of 18 years were eligible to apply for the said post. The Complainant also applied. On 12.12.2010, she was called for interview. On being selected on 28.12.2010, she was offered the job. As per the policy of the Company she deposited a non -refundable amount of Rs. 50,000 for undergoing the training. However, on scrutiny of the papers submitted by her at the time of joining for training, it was discovered that she had wrongly mentioned her date of birth in her Resume as 2.11.1990, whereas her actual date of birth was 2.11.1993 and, therefore, as on the date of interview on 12.12.2010 she was below the age of 18 years. On gaining the said knowledge, the Company revoked the letter of offer sent to her and forfeited the said deposit of Rs. 50,000. On 8.3.2011, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Petitioner seeking refund of the said amount. The prayer for refund of the said amount having been turned down by the Company, alleging deficiency in service, a Complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the Complainant, praying for refund of the said amount along with compensation of 1 lac on account of loss of one precious year and a further sum of Rs. 30,000 as compensation for mental trauma, tension and depression.
2. THE Complaint was contested by the Petitioner. Written reply on behalf of the Company was sent to the District Forum by post. In the said reply besides raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant was not a "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, it was also alleged that as per her own admission she had misrepresented in her Resume as well as at the time of interview that her age was 20 years 1 month and 11 days. However, her actual date of birth being 2.11.1993, she was only 17 years 1 month and 11 days of age as on the date of interview. It was also stated that the amount deposited by her was non -refundable as per the terms and conditions of the letter of offer sent to her.
The District Forum, while cursorily dealing with the allegation of misrepresentation relating to the date of birth, held as follows:
According to opposite parties, the complainant had disclosed the wrong fact regarding her date of birth while it was stated by the complainant that she made aware to the opposite parties about all facts and gave the correct date of birth and after issuance of their letter, she deposited Rs. 50,000 through D.D. with them. Because the complainant has not done any training with the opposite parties and due to this reason, it was the responsibility of the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount to the complainant. By not refunding the said deposited amount, the opposite parties have deficiency service towards her.
3. ACCORDINGLY , accepting her bald plea that she had herself disclosed to the Petitioner her correct date of birth, and she had not undergone training, non -refund of the said amount amounted to deficiency in service by the Company to the Complainant, the District Forum issued the aforenoted directions to the Petitioner. The said order having been affirmed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
4. WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner strenuously urged that the Complainant had managed to secure the said job by making a misrepresentation about her correct date of birth in her Resume, she had played fraud with the Company. It was contended that had the Complainant disclosed her correct date of birth, being less than 18 years of age at the relevant time, she would have been disqualified at the initial stage itself. It was asserted that both the Fora below brushed aside a serious objection in a very casual manner. It was pleaded, that the District Forum ought to have dismissed the Complaint on the ground of misrepresentation, without going into the merits of the Complaint.
5. LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Complainant, on the other hand, while supporting the decision of the Fora below, submitted that having permitted the Complainant to continue her training on the assurance that her admission will be regularized on her attaining the age of 18 years, the Company was estopped from revoking the letter of appointment.
6. IT is trite law that an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due, tantamounts to fraud. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or by words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or by letter. [See: Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors., : VII (2008) SLT 557 : (2008) 13 SCC 170].
In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., : II (1993) BC 546 : (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the doctrine of fraud and its effect on the judgment obtained by a party. The Court prefaced its judgment with the following observations:
Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ''ecclesiastical or temporal'' observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first Court or by the highest Court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.
Disagreeing with the opinion of the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence" the Hon''ble Court observed as follows:
The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property -grabbers, tax -evaders, bank -loan -dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court -process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who''s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. IN United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendera Singh & Ors. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjay Singh & Ors., : III (2000) SLT 1 : II (2000) CLT 25 (SC) : I (2000) ACC 484 (SC) : (2000) 3 SCC 581, on revelation of new facts indicating that the awards had been obtained by the claimants by allegedly playing fraud, the Insurance Company sought to challenge two awards made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the MACT") for payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which had attained finality. The applications filed by the Insurance Company for recall of the awards were dismissed by the MACT and the High Court. Allowing the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and setting aside the awards, the Supreme Court held that no Court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless even to recall its own order, if it is convinced that the order was wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. It was observed that:
''Fraud and justice never dwell together'' (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that ''no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything'' (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley) (, (1956) 1 QB 702 :, (1956) 1 All ER 341 :, (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA).
8. IN Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & Ors., : III (2008) SLT 363 : II (2008) CLT 83 (SC) : (2008) 12 SCC 353, the Supreme Court went to the extent of saying that if an order is obtained by reason of commission of fraud, even the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with for setting aside such an order. Therefore, any order obtained by playing fraud on any Court or authority, superior or inferior, is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law.
Having considered the case in the light of the aforestated legal position in our opinion, the orders of the Fora below are unsustainable. The material on record leaves little doubt in our mind that the Complainant got selected for the said job by declaring her date of birth as 2.11.1990, which was wrong to her knowledge. Admittedly, on the basis of her actual date of birth i.e. 2.11.1993, being below the age of 18 years, the minimum age requirement, she was not even eligible to apply for the said job. It was a clear case of misrepresentation and deliberate deception, which was discovered by the Company while scrutinizing the documents filed by the Complainant at the time of joining for training. All these factual aspects were brought to the notice of the District Forum by the Petitioner in the written objections but we are constrained to observe that both the Fora below have failed to address themselves on this vital aspect of misrepresentation. We are of the view that by consciously declaring an incorrect date of birth in her application in order to secure a job, the Complainant was guilty of misrepresentation and, therefore, her complaint should have been dismissed by the District Forum at the threshold.
9. SINCE we have come to the conclusion that the very foundation of the Complainant''s claim was based on falsehood and, therefore, her Complaint should have been summarily dismissed by the Fora below, we deem it unnecessary to deal with other objections raised by the Company regarding the maintainability of the Complaint. For the aforegoing reasons, we allow the Revision Petition; set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint on this short ground alone. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.
