The Kasaragod District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a shipping firm to pay Rs 1.80 lakh to a woman and her 19-year-old son after the youth was issued an employment contract as an ordinary seaman but was never provided the promised job.
In an order issued on August 20, a bench comprising Commission President Krishnan K. and member Beena K. G. instructed the enterprise to refund Rs 1.50 lakh collected from the family, alongside Rs 25,000 in compensation for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service, and Rs 5,000 toward litigation expenses. The firm was directed to settle the total amount within 30 days.
Payment and Unfulfilled Appointment
According to the complaint, the 19-year-old applied for the maritime position in 2023 after responding to an employment advertisement. The shipping concern subsequently sought Rs 1.50 lakh to secure the role. To arrange the required sum, the candidate’s 38-year-old mother liquidated her gold jewellery, depositing an initial instalment of Rs 1 lakh into a bank account provided under the firm’s name, followed by a concluding transfer of Rs 50,000.
Upon receipt of the funds, the candidate received an employment contract bearing the signature of the firm’s managing director. The agreement confirmed his appointment as an ordinary seaman on an hourly basic wage of 850 US dollars, specifying allowances and working terms under the company’s official seal.
Acting on instructions from the enterprise, the young man travelled to Bhubaneswar on December 26, 2023, checking into a local guest house to await induction. However, company personnel ceased answering his telephone calls, abandoning him without employment or further guidance.
Represented by advocate Chaithra M., the mother and son approached the consumer panel citing substantial emotional distress and financial disruption. Their petition sought the reimbursement of the Rs 1.50 lakh recruitment charge, Rs 14,300 in transit costs, Rs 30,000 for lodging in Bhubaneswar, as well as damages for mental agony and legal expenditures.
Defense Cites Impersonation and Forgery
Appearing for the shipping firm, advocate Mubashir Kundoor argued that the organization had neither accepted payments from the complainants nor entered into any contractual relationship with them. The defense contended that an unidentified third party had misappropriated the company’s trading identity to generate fraudulent documents lacking legitimate signatures or formal authorization.
Counsel further submitted that the enterprise had lodged a complaint regarding the matter with the commissioner of police and had issued a public caution notice disclaiming any financial dealings or employment engagements with the applicants.
Commission Cites Recruitment Malpractices
The commission rejected the defense, noting that the appointment dossier presented in the proceedings carried the official seal, authorized signatures, and formal wage structures of the shipping entity. The bench concluded that entities offering employment cannot solicit funds, execute recruitment paperwork, and subsequently renege on their commitments.
The panel observed that the youth had approached the company with significant career aspirations, only to have his prospects undermined by the firm’s deceit, subjecting the family to actionable service deficiency and financial hardship.
The commission also cautioned against wider deceptive recruitment mechanisms, identifying practices such as disseminating fabricated appointment notices, managing applicant interactions through channels such as WhatsApp and Telegram, pressing candidates for rapid monetary transfers, and operating without verifiable physical establishments as clear markers of fraudulent inducement.
