Judgment:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT
The appellant is the second opposite party in CC 280/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. Appellant as well as the third opposite party is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- with 9% interest from 30/06/06 the date of complaint and cost of Rs.1,500/-.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the appellant assured her that he will arrange a work permit at U.K. within a period of 3 months and for the same he received a sum of Rs.30,000/-. She was earlier employed in Soudi Arabia. On 30.12.04 an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the third opposite party and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the third opposite party at the instance of the second opposite party. She was assured that the work permit and visa will be ready by 31.3.05. The same could not be materialized. It is after a lot of efforts that the opposite parties returned the original certificates. The ISLETS original certificate has not been returned so far. The opposite party had sent a draft for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and handed over through the second opposite party. It is alleged that the draft could not be encashed as the 3rd opposite party had directed to stop the payment. A criminal complaint was also filed before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery and a crime has been registered. The complainant has sought for a sum of        Rs.5,00,000/-          as compensation. The first opposite party is the drawer bank of the draft of Rs.1 lakh
3.  The first opposite party has filed version denying liability.
4. The second opposite party has filed version contending that he is running an institution for spoken English and is also having consultancy. He has no authority to arrange the work permit. He has only provided information. According to him he has received only Rs.30,000/- as consultation fee and the amount has been returned by cheque for Rs.25,000/-and by cash of Rs.5,000/-.
5. The third opposite party was ex-parte.
6. The third opposite party is ex-parte before this Commission also.
7. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and PW2, DW1 and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A9, B1 and B2.
8. There is only oral evidence to substantiate the case of the second opposite party/appellant that Rs.5,000/- was paid in cash. Hence the forum disbelieved the above part of evidence and held that Rs.25,000/- alone was returned by the appellant. It is pointed out that even Ext.A1 lawyer notice was sent only to the third opposite party. It is pointed out that Ext.A3 agreement was entered into between the third opposite party alone. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the 2nd opposite party is signatory as witness to the agreement. It is the case of the complainant that everything was arranged by the second opposite party/appellant. The third opposite party is located at Pune only. Evidently, the complainant has paid the money on the basis of the trust placed on the second opposite party. Only the second opposite party would be knowing the credibility of the third opposite party. It has also to be noted that the second opposite party has admittedly received Rs.30,000/- towards service charges. The above alone would indicate that he would be arranging only reliable outfits to arrange work permit. The second opposite party/appellant cannot be absolved in the above circumstances. Hence, we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum. The order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.