DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 398/14

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

In the matter of:

Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 16.6.2014 complainant visited OPs office and requested for providing full time maid. OP demanded Rs. 8000/- as registration fee but complainant had deposited Rs. 4000/- as advance payment to OP. At that time OP told her to visit on 20.6.14 at his office for interview of maid servant who is going to be sent to her house. On 20.6.2014 complainant with her husband visited OP’s office and remained there from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM but nobody came for interview. Since 20.6.2014 complainant enquired from the OP daily for providing maid servant and the OP gave only assurance for sending the maid but till date no maid servant was send by OP to complainant’s house.  Establishing deficiency in service on OP’s part complainant has prayed, to direct OP to send maid immediately to her house alongwith Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for cost of litigation.

2. Notice was sent to OP. OP did not enter appearance though served with notice on 24.10.2014, hence was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 27.11.2014.

3. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and filed documents, receipt issued by OP, a letter sent to OP by complainant.

4. We heard the complainant and perused the record.

5. A receipt filed by the complainant issued by OP dated 16.6.14 shows that OP has charged Rs. 4000/- out of Rs. 8,000/- registration fee from the complainant as advance, balance amount of Rs. 4000/- was to be given after placement of the maid. Letter dated 25.8.14 written by the complainant to OP show that complainant is demanding for full time maid and also approached OP number of times personally as well as through phone calls but OP failed to send any maid servant to complainant’s house. The above documents proves that inspite of taking advance money from complainant, OP has failed to send the maid servant to complainant’s house. As OP has been served but choose not to enter appearance and rebut the allegation contained in the complaint, the case of the complainant stands proved.

6. We therefore, hold OP guilty for deficiency in service and direct OP to:-

1.  either send the maid servant immediately to complainant’s house or return the advance amount of Rs. 4000/- with interest thereon @ 12% p.a.

2.     Rs. 2000/- as damages against harassment, mental agony and;

3.     Rs. 1000/- as cost of litigation

6.        Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  

7.        File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  19.09.2016)