IMPORTANT POINT
Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive opposite party of fruits of decree must be dealt with heavy hands.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) by the petitioner/O.P. No.1 challenging impugned order dated 18.1.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh UT (for short, ‘State Commission’), dismissing First Appeal No.361 of 2011 and confirming order dated 14.11.2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- II, Chandigarh UT (for short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2011.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent no.1/complainant was persuaded by respondent no.2/opposite party no.2, an authorized representative of petitioner and was offered immigration to Australia. Respondent no.1 was convinced that petitioner would arrange a suitable employer from Australia, to facilitate respondent no.1 and his family for Australian Immigration, without the requirement of passing ILETS. In consideration of the said services, Australian Dollars 10,000 as service charges and Rs.15,000/- for assessment fee alongwith Australian Dollars 300, in favour of “Recognition Australian” were also demanded by respondent no.2 for finding a suitable nomination/sponsor in Australia, for respondent no.1. After receipt of a sum of Rs.15,000/-, petitioner and respondent no.2, issued receipt No.0179 dated 9.8.2006. Australian Dollars to the extent of 300 were paid by respondent no.1, through demand draft, dated 30.10.2006, and receipt was issued. Respondent no.1 also deposited Rs.3,50,000/-, with respondent No.2, under acknowledgement dated 19.12.2006. Further, respondent no.1 furnished all the requisite documents. Thereafter, respondent no.1 made repeated visits to the petitioner and respondent no.2, to know the status of his case. In the meanwhile, for the purpose of visa processing, a medical report was demanded by petitioner and respondent no.2 which he submitted vide receipt Nos.2270 and 2910 dated 11.12.2008. It was further stated that respondent no.1 had to incur approximately Rs.3,500/- for the said test. However, ultimately respondent No.2, left the service of petitioner and started his own concern under the name and style of “ONTINA EDUCATION CONSULTANT”, 21E, ESTATE at Ambala Cantt. Haryana. When no response was given by petitioner and respondent no.2 with regard to the status of the immigration of respondent no.1, left with no other alternative, a legal notice dated 13.12.2010 was served by the respondent no.1, upon them. But no reply to the same was received by him. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the petitioner and respondent no.2, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the respondent no.1, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Act for refund of Rs.3,78,300/- alongwith interest @15% per annum; Rs.50,000/-, on account of mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs.20,000/- against miscellaneous expenses, was filed.

3. Petitioner was duly served, but none put in appearance, on its behalf. As a result whereof it was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 26.4.2011.

4. Respondent no.2 put in appearance and filed its written version, wherein, he stated that he was an employee of petitioner at the relevant time. It was further stated that Dr. V. Mattu was the Managing Director of petitioner, at the relevant time. It was admitted that respondent No.2, obtained the amount referred to in the complaint, from the respondent no.1. It was further stated that the same was deposited, in the account of petitioner. It was further stated that crucial document i.e. IELTS, which was the condition precedent, for getting sponsorship of an employer from Australia, was not submitted by respondent no.1 and the remaining documents submitted by respondent no.1, were of no use. It was further stated that respondent no.2, was no longer an employee of petitioner. It was denie