A PEER MOHAMMED Vs. INTERNATIONAL OVERSEAS CONSULTANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties M/s. International Overseas Consultants made a publication in newspapers for appointment in M/s. Sembawang Shipyard Company, Singapore. In pursuance of this publication the complainant applied to the post of Foreman Engineer (Boiler) and the complainant sent Bio-data of his present and past employment to the opposite party by post on 18.7.94. The complainant received a telegram from the opposite party on 19.8.94 asking him to report to the office of the opposite party at 13.30 hours on 5th September, 1994 for Sembawang interview. According to the complainant he went to the opposite party's office with original pass-port and documents with 6 photos; on 5th September, 1994 interview was conducted by the opposite party at the instance of the delegates of M/s. Sembawang Shipyard Company; after the interview, by telegram, the complainant was declared to be selected for the post of Foreman (boiler maker) and the complainant had been asked to come over to Madras to sign the offer of appointment. The complainant did so on 23.9.94. The further case of the complainant is that the opposite party said that he should pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as service charges and the payment shall be made at the time of boarding the flight to Singapore; then the opposite party directed the complainant to undergo medical fitness test. The complainant was referred to Dr. Mohammed Innaiyathullah. The complainant paid the opposite party a sum of Rs.600/- for medical examination and also for administrtative expenses. After the test the Doctor informed the complainant that he was suffering from sexually transmitted disease. The complainant met a specialist one Dr. Sivakumar, M. D. D. V. , in this regard and he gave a report dated 14.10.94 stating that the complainant was not suffering from sexually transmitted disease. When this was informed to Dr. Mohammed Innayathullah, he said that he would clear the case of the complainant at an early date. The complainant was eagerly awaiting for appointment orders. After waiting for a long time, in January, 1995 he went to the opposite party and it was then he was informed that his case was not cleared in view of the medical report. However, after referring him once again to the Doctor, the Doctor told him that within a short period he would be sent to Singapore for the post. But, he has not received any communication from the opposite party. The opposite party having selected him for the post, with some ulterior motive have not chosen him to send to Singapore. Thus the opposite party is guilty of deficiency is service. On these allegations the complainant has prayed for compensation on different heads aggregating to Rs.16,00,000/-.

(2.) The opposite parties in their written version submitted that they are licencees carrying on business for recruitment for deployment of Indian workers to foreign employers. The opposite parties has nothing to do with M/s. Sembawang Shipyard, Singapore in the selection of the complainant as a candidate for any appointment. As and when the foreign employers contacted them for recruitment of Indian employees they would publish the same in the newspapers in their name. Interview, Selection, Appointment and terms and conditions of service will be decided by the employer. All the terms and conditions will be operative subject to medical fitness of the candidate selected in the interview. Following the above procedure M/s. Sembawang Shipyard Company's advertisement was advertised in The Hindu dated 16.7.94 calling for the post of Foreman (Boiler Maker ). In pursuance of the said advertisement the complainant applied for and was interviewed by the said Company M/s. Sembawang Shipyard of Singapore. Their representatives interviewed the complainant, and terms and conditions were fixed by them and the complainant and both of them signed the same on 23.9.94. The said Sembawang Shipyard Company is necessary party to this proceeding. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted by the opposite party that they deny the allegation that the interview was conducted by the opposite party. The opposite parties further deny the allegation that they demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as service charges. The opposite parties further deny the allegation that the complainant paid to the opposite party a sum of Rs.600/- as fees for medical examination and administrative expenses. The opposite party then would submit that they cannot send employees suffering from venerial diseases to foreign countries. They further submit that they are not aware as to what happened between the complainant and the medical officers. Since no consideration has been paid by the complainant to this opposite party the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. No question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party arises. The claim is speculative. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the opposite parties are guilty of any deficiency in service. (2) To what compensation, if any, the complainant will be entitled to.