ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, against the order dated 06.03.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.A/131/2007. By the said order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioners against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (“for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.202 of 2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the month of May 2016, an agent of M/s AIMS Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. approached the respondent (complainant) to give his Bio Data / CV to him for helping him to get a job. He was also assured by Ms.Sapna Sikdar, a Senior Manager of M/s AIMS Business Solution that he would be assisted in getting a suitable placement. The respondent was asked to deposit 21,200/- as fees and amount of 20,000/- was deposited by way of cheque and 1200/- by cash for the purpose of giving information month after month over phone and SMS. The information regarding interview at Nesle India Ltd. was given to the complainant but it did not materialize. His case was that this information was misleading information. Though the date of interview was informed to him by M/s AIMS Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. but no such interview had happened on that date.

3. On 06.02.2016, on the complainant’s demand of refund of his money, he was threatened. His phone calls were not attended and his complaint was not given any heed. He wrote a letter which was not replied. He also filed complaint with Shakespeare Sarani Police Station. Despite his several visits to the office of petitioners and making complaint against them, no services were given by them to him. There was deficiency in rendering service by the revisionist and due to that he had suffered great financial loss, harassment, humiliation, mental pain etc. Respondent had further alleged that petitioners had acted with ulterior motives. Respondent sought refund of 20,000/- and compensation of 70,000/- for the sufferings and 9000/- towards litigation cost.

-3-

4. In the written version, the petitioners had taken the plea that they had never promised the respondent that he would be given a job by them. Their liability was to the extent of providing information to the respondent that his CV had been selected for a particular post by a particular company. They had sent many SMSes and information to the complainant to that effect. Since job was to be given to the complainant on the basis of his merit, no liability can be fastened upon them on failure of the respondent in getting a job. There was no assurance from them to provide a job to the respondent within one year. It was also pleaded that complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before the District Forum, where the complaint was filed, the parties produced their evidence which were duly perused and recorded by the District Forum in its order. The following are the reasons given in its order by the District Forum and for the sake of convenience, the same is reproduced as under:

“On over all evaluation of complaint petition, written version, E/Chief and other materials on record it is evident that complainant Gunjan Roy is a job aspirant. One of the Marketing Agents of M/s For-AIMS Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. approached to complainant to offer him to submit a CV to the OP- 1 so that they can assist complainant in getting job. Complainant was told to deposit Rs.21,200/- as fees, but the O.Ps. gave misleading information and none of which is dependable. Complainant has not received a single information regarding job. Complainant has not received a single interview call. OPs have given an incomplete information regarding job. As they have taken money they gave an information which is not appropriate.

Complainant has not got any interview from Nestle India Ltd. The SM