K RAJENDIRAN ALIAS DUBAI RAJENDRAN Vs. N SENTHILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The foundational facts as culled out from the materials placed on record may, in brevity, be stated in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

(2.) The complainant is one N. Senthilkumar, a job seeker. The first opposite party is one R. Iyyappan and the second opposite party is one Dubai Rajendran @ K. Rajendiran. The first and the second opposite parties are friends and known to each other. The first opposite party was also a friend of the complainant. The complainant sought the help of the 1st opposite party for procurement of a job for him in foreign shores through the medium of the 2nd opposite party who is arranging jobs in foreign shores for jobless persons. The complainant was introduced by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party promised to procure a job in a foreign shore for a consideration of Rs.44,000/-. The consideration has been passed on to the 2nd opposite party through the medium of the 1st opposite party. The consideration of Rs.44,000/- had been paid by the issuance of three drafts each for Rs.10,000/- of even date viz. , 15.12.1993 besides payment of cash in a sum of Rs.14,000/- on the same date i. e. , 15.12.1993. The cash so paid was evidenced by the passing of a receipt dated 16.12.1993 by the 2nd opposite party. Despite payment of consideration for the services of the 2nd opposite party for the procurement of a job for the complainant in foreign shores, there was no dividend yielding, in the sense of securing a job for the complainant for pretty long. The complainant as well as the 1st opposite party, it appears, pressurised the 2nd opposite party on his non-securing of a job for the complainant as promised. The 2nd opposite party, it appears, had contact with one Mr. David through whom he was securing jobs for others for consideration. According to him, he passed on the consideration to the said Mr. David for procuring a job for the complainant and the efforts he made through the said Mr. David faced a colossal failure for the procurement of a job for the complainant in foreign shores.

(3.) Unable to bear the pressure of the complainant and the 1st opposite party, in his inability to procure a job for the complainant, the 2nd opposite party thought fit to return the amount he had received through the medium of the 1st opposite party and consequently he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 7.4.1997 towards part payment of the consideration he had received. The cheque so issued had been bounced.