Man paid Rs 3.7 lakh for Israel job, got no employment; consumer panel orders refund, Rs 2 lakh compensation
NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Kerala has directed two people to refund Rs 3.7 lakh to a man after taking the money on the promise of securing him employment in Israel. The commission held that the repeated postponement of his travel, failure to provide employment or valid travel arrangements and the alleged fake flight reservation amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It also awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation. The order was passed on August 18, 2026.What was the dispute over the Israel job placement?According to the commission order, Joseph Manuel approached Reji C Varkey, proprietor of Bagal Holidays, and Preetha Alex in 2022 after they allegedly said that they could secure employment for him in Israel within three months to one year. They allegedly assured him that they had the expertise and arrangements to facilitate employment, documentation, visa processing and travel.Joseph paid a total of Rs 3.7 lakh towards processing, placement and service charges. Of this, Rs 2.2 lakh was transferred to the bank account of Reji and Rs 1.5 lakh was paid to Preetha. The commission records, however, show that the first two payments of Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 were transferred to Shilpa Mary, the daughter of Preetha.During 2022 and 2023, the opposite parties repeatedly gave Joseph dates for his departure to Israel. He made preparations for travel each time, but the dates were allegedly postponed or cancelled, often one or two days before departure.In July 2023, the opposite parties allegedly gave him a flight reservation confirmation. Joseph later claimed that the document was fake and that no genuine flight reservation had been made. After the Israel conflict broke out in October 2023, he was told that travel and employment would be difficult for several months because of the security situation. Even afterwards, he said, more departure dates were given and then postponed or cancelled.Joseph eventually visited the office of the first opposite party and sought a definite solution. He was again given a travel date, but that date too was changed. The opposite parties later stopped responding to his calls and messages and neither provided the promised employment nor refunded his money.Joseph then approached the consumer commission seeking refund of Rs 3.7 lakh, besides compensation, costs and other reliefs. The opposite parties were served notice on March 3, 2026, but did not appear or file their versions. The commission proceeded against them ex parte on June 17, 2026.What did the commission say while holding the two people responsible?The bench comprising President S K Sreela and member Stanly Harold noted that the payments were supported by bank statements and other documents. It also said the opposite parties had been given an opportunity to explain the payments but chose not to contest the complaint.“The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties had undertaken to secure employment for him in Israel and to make the necessary arrangements relating to placement, documentation, visa and travel. The consideration was admittedly not paid as a gratuitous payment. It was paid for a promised service. The very foundation of the transaction was therefore the expectation that the opposite parties would render the promised overseas employment placement service,” the commission said.The commission noted that the opposite parties produced no material to show that genuine employment had been secured, a valid work visa processed or a genuine air ticket booked. It also considered the disputed flight reservation confirmation and said the opposite parties could have appeared before the commission to establish that it was genuine but did not do so.“The complainant has succeeded in establishing, on the basis of the evidence available on record, that the opposite parties received Rs.3,70,000/- towards the promised overseas employment placement service and failed to provide the service for which the consideration was paid. Such failure squarely constitutes deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,” the bench noted.The commission also said the repeated assurances, postponements and cancellations, along with the disputed flight reservation, showed a course of conduct that induced Joseph to pay a substantial amount and kept him waiting without providing the promised service or refunding his money. It held that the conduct also amounted to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The commission took into account Joseph’s financial circumstances, noting that he was working as a daily-wage employee. It said he had lost valuable time and faced anxiety, frustration and hardship after repeatedly preparing to travel and then being told at the last moment that the journey would not take place.It further noted that Joseph had sent a legal notice on January 12, 2026 seeking a refund, but the opposite parties neither returned the money nor gave an explanation.“This commission therefore holds that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the amount received from the complainant and for the consequences arising from their failure to render the promised service. The complainant is consequently entitled to refund of the principal amount together with reasonable interest and compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and harassment suffered by him,” it further noted.The commission awarded 9 percent annual interest on the Rs 3.7 lakh from the respective dates of payment until realisation. It also awarded Rs 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial hardship, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.The commission directed Reji and Preetha to jointly and severally pay the amounts within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. If they fail to comply, Joseph can initiate execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
