1. This revision petition has been filed by K.B.Mohammed & Anr. against the order dated 12.4.2011 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ''the State Commission).
2. The facts of the case are that complainant No.2 had worked in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) earlier for 14 years as plumber. This time, Badariya Travels, whose proprietors are the petitioners arranged him a Visa for KSA for the job of a plumber. All formalities were got completed for emigration for complainant No.2 by the petitioners and petitioner No.1 also arranged the ticket to KSA. It has been alleged that after reaching KSA, the complainant No.2 was not accepted as plumber, but he was asked to do the job of tree climber and as shepherd. As promised job was not provided to him, he wanted to return to India urgently and his employer paid one side ticket and complainant No.2 returned back to India. After his rerun, he along with his brother filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, (in short ''the District Forum''), which vide its order dated 24.09.2010 decided the complaint as under
"In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the
date of payment till realization with costs Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the
complainants within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
3. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/petitioners
preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which modified the order of the District Forum,
vide its order dated 12.4.2011, as follows:-
"In the circumstances, we find that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of the
case set up by the complainants and hence we find that no interference of the order is
called for. The appellants are directed to pay Rs.1 lakh to the complainants. The
interest at 12% ordered to be paid is modified to 8% from the date of complaint. The
order to pay cost of Rs.1000/- is sustained. Amounts are to be paid within 3 months from
the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants will be entitled for
interest at 12% from 6.4.11 the date of this order. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly."
4. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the present revision has been filed by
the petitioners/opposite parties.
5. We heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioners are not the recruiting agents under the Emigration Act, 1983 and cannot provide any job Visa to any Indian to go to any Emigration- required country. They are only running a travel agency, which has no power to send anybody outside India under the Emigration Act, 1983. Learned counsel also informed that the complainant No.2 wanted a Visa of a plumber that was available with M/s. Syed Enterprises, Bombay and the petitioners only informed the complainants about this availability and later arranged the ticket and completed other formalities of emigration. He charged only Rs.32,000/- for the air ticket and he also charged fees for emigration clearance for which proper receipt was also given. The State Commission has wrongly treated the petitioners as the Visa provider and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded against the petitioners. Legally, petitioners cannot provide any job Visa for KSA to anybody and therefore, they cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service in providing Visa.
7. Learned counsel also submitted that the foreign employer, Mr. Salah Abdul Kaliq Yousuf has executed a power of attorney in favour of M/s. Syed Enterprises, to recruit two Muslim employees to work as plumber. The foreign employer has issued a certificate that "though he came to my establishment by a visa of plumber by profession, he refused to do the job saying that he was not willing to work as a plumber. I allowed him either to do any work that he likes here in my establishment or to try to find a sponsor or any other suitable establishment to transfer his visa to. But he was not willing to do any work and he wanted to go back to India as soon as possible". Thus, it is clear that the complainant No.2 came back to India of his own will though he was provided the job of a plumber.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioners had taken Rs.1,00,000/- to arrange for a job Visa and to get all formalities for emigration completed. The complainant No.2 had already worked in KSA as plumber for about 14 years and that is why, he went there again to work as plumber. It cannot be believed that he would not have liked to work as plumber there. The fact is that the complainant No.2 was asked by the foreign employer to work as tree climber or as shepherd in his field to graze sheep, which the complainant No.2 refused and wanted to leave the job and come back to India. The complainant No.2 was unaware about the recruiting agent, who actually made Visa available as the same was provided by the petitioners themselves. Money was also given to the petitioners and therefore, the refund of money is also required from them. Moreover the petitioner No.1 has given undertaking on 26.5.2003 that he would return back Rs.1,00,000/- to Muhammed on 31 July, 2003 Thursday. Both the fora below have given st concurrent findings which do not require any interference from this Commission.
9. We have gone through the records and have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. It is admitted fact by the petitioners that petitioner No.1 arranged for the ticket and took Rs.32,000/- from the complainants. In the revision petition, the petitioners have admitted in para 9 of the revision petition that petitioner No.1 arranged air ticket for respondent No.1 and also did his emigration clearance work. The petitioner No.1 had received Rs.32,000/- in total against ticket fare and his service charge for work of emigration clearance. This itself shows that the petitioners were working illegally as agent of M/s. Syed Enterprises, Bombay, recruiting agent. The petitioners have admitted that they have charged fees for their work for emigration clearance, which is the job of the recruiting agent. Thus, the petitioners have provided the service of emigration. Emigration services are linked with the job Visa and therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners is self-evident. Both the fora below have rightly decided the complaint.
10. On the other hand, we find that the complainants have got their emigration clearance and job Visa through an unauthorised person/agency. As the complainant No.2 had been to KSA earlier and must be aware about the procedure being followed in India, he has also colluded with the petitioners to get the job Visa and emigration clearance in an unauthorised manner. He has gone through illegal route and thus, he was also at fault.
11. Based on the above discussion, we are of the view that in the circumstances of the case, balance of justice would be achieved, if petitioners refund Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) to the complainants instead of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as ordered by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission, along with interest as ordered by the State Commission. We are not inclined to interfere with the cost of Rs.1000/- awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission.
12. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) instead of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)as ordered by the State Commission vide its order dated 12.4.2011 along with interest awarded by the State Commission. The order dated 12.4.2011 of the State Commission stands modified accordingly. Other components of the order of the State Commission shall remain unchanged. No order as to costs for this revision petition.
