S RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. SANTOSH TRAVELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complaint in Complaint Petitions No. O.P. 76 of 1992 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu the is appellant in this appeal. In the two complaints filed by him which virtually deal with identical matters, the case put forward by the complainant, briefly stated, was is conducting business as travel and recruiting agents published an advertisement dated 30th March, (Madras City Edition) in the Tamil daily newspaper 'Dinamani' inviting applications for the posts of Plant Maintenance Engineer, Plant Maintenance Senior Technicians, Senior Rotating Equipment Technicians, Foreman and Mechanics for service in Kuwait and that in response to the said advertisement the complainant had applied for the post of Plant Maintenance Engineer. It is further alleged that on March 31, 1987, the complainant was interviewed at Madras by the representatives of the Kuwait employer M/s. KREMENCO and he was selected for appointment as Plant Maintenance Engineer. Pursuant to the said selection a contact of employment is said to have been entered into in writing between the complainant and M/s. KREMENCO at Madras on March 31,1987 of which Exhibit A2 is said to be a copy. It is the further case of the complainant that he was called to Bombay by the Opposite Party in June, 1987 and was handed over the travel documents for enabling him to proceed to Kuwait after collecting from the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of service charges and Rs. 350/- by way of expenses for getting his medical certificate. In spite of the complainant having requested for being furnished with a copy of the contract of employment, the opposite Party allegedly did not furnish one to him.

(2.) The complainant's further case is that he reached Kuwait and joined duty on June 24, 1987 on a salary of 350 Kuwait Dinnars per month. Less than a month later, on July 14,1987, the services of the complainant were terminated by M/s. KREMENCO as per their notice exhibit A5 which purports to have been issued under Clause (9) of the contract of employment. Representations made by the complainant to the Ministry of Social Affairs, Kuwait and to the Indian Embassy there complaining against the illegal termination of his service were of no avail. The complainant then instituted a suit in the Court at Kuwait and that suit is said to be still pending trial there. He was deported to India on December 13, 1987. The complainant sought to recover a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the Opposite Party by way of relief in O.P. No. 75 of 1991 on the ground that the Opposite Party had wrongfully failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the contract of employment. In O.P. No. 76 of 1991, the complainant contended that the Opposite Party was guilty of unfair trade practice in that it incited the complainant to enter into a bogus contract with M/s. KREMENCO and thereby put the complainant to heavy loss. On this basis, the complainant prayed for an order being passed against the respondent directing payment to him of all arrears of salary at 350 Kuwait Dinnars per month from November 1, 1987 till the date of completion of the contractual period of four years, along with all service benefits etc.

(3.) The Opposite Party in its objection statement raised the plea that the complainant was not a 'consumer' in relation to it since no service had been agreed by it to be provided to the complainant for any consideration. The respondent stoutly denied that the complainant had paid to it Rs. 5000/- as service charges or Rs. 350/- as expenses for obtaining medical certificate. According to the plea raised by the Opposite Party, it had not acted as the agent of the complainant and that it had merely inserted an advertisement in the newspaper on behalf of M/s. KREMENCO, Kuwait for which it had been paid by M/s. KREMENCO. There was no privity of contract at all between the Opposite Party and the complainant. The complainant had entered into a contract of employment with M/s. KREMENCO at Madras, of his own accord. The allegation that there was any 'deficiency in service' on the part of the Opposite Party and the claim put forward on that basis for the recovery of compensation from it were stoutly refuted by the Opposite Party.