IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.153/10 (Filed on 12.11.2010)Between: Smt. A. Valsalakumari, Ambadiyil, Othara.P.O., Pin – 689 546, Pazhayakavu, Thiruvalla. ..... Complainant And: Sri. Anil, Bharath Consultancy, Meleparampil Building, Kizhakken Muthoor, Kuttappuzha.P.O., Thiruvalla – 689 103. ..... Opposite party. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant’s aged father and mother resides at Kizhakke Othera, Thiruvalla Taluk. She approached the opposite party for providing home nurse to look after her parents. She explained the terms and condition. As per condition the age of home nurse should be at about 50 years. The opposite party accepted the terms and conditions. Thereafter complainant and opposite party entered into an agreement and opposite party accepted ` 5,500 including registration fee and remuneration of home nurse in advance for a period of three months (ie. `1400 + ` 4000). As per agreement, opposite party handed over one home nurse named Sarojam and complainant took her to her parents’ residence. While doing her work, with the permission of opposite party, Sarojam went to her home and returned at 5 p.m. on the same day. After two days, she repeated it again. It caused inconvenience and lack of care to complainant’s parents. This was informed to opposite party and with their permission, Sarojam has been sent back. 3. Thereafter, complainant informed the urgency and need of service of another home nurse, opposite party provided a 25-year-old young woman. If that young woman was accepted, complainant would have the additional burden to ensure the security of her. Therefore, complainant given the bus charges and returned with the opposite party. 4. Even though, opposite party assured another home nurse, they failed to provide it. Complainant has approached several times. But before the completion of 3 months, a call came from Thiruvananthapuram Medical College from a woman. She informed that she would be the home nurse as per the instruction of opposite party. Her relative is in serious condition and therefore some time is needed to attend the complainant’s residence. She has not disclosed her name. Complainant had the strong believe that it is a false information. 5. Thereafter also complainant contact the opposite party by telephone. But he has not responded it. At last, complainant has the strong believe that she would not have get any service from opposite party. She asked to return the amount received by opposite party. But opposite party ridiculed and replied that she would not return a single pisa and threatened her. Hence this complaint for refunding the amount with compensation. 6. Opposite party has not appeared. Hence they were declared as exparte. 7. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 8. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant was examined as PW1 and the document produced were marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the agreement executed by the complainant and opposite party. After the closure of evidence, complainant was heard. 9. On a perusal of evidence on record, it is learned that even though both parties mutually executed Ext.A1, opposite party has not complied it by providing service of home nurse to look after the complainant’s aged parents. She paid ` 5,500 for registration fee including service charge and advance for a period of three months. But she availed only 5 ½ days service. Available evidence on record shows that opposite party has not provided services of home nurse even though she approached several occasions. It is the boundan duty of opposite party to provide adequate service to complainant as per Ext.A1. By not providing service after accepting ` 5,500 is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and this case is maintainable before the Forum. 10. Opposite party neither appeared nor adduced any evidence either to prove the contention if any or to disprove the complainant’s case. Therefore, complainant’s case proved unchallenged as against the opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowable with compensation. Since there is no prayer for cost, the same is not allowed. 11. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby opposite party is directed to return ` 5,500 (Rupees Five Thousand Five hundred only) along with compensation of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 10% interest from this date till the realisation of the whole amount. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 9th day of February, 2011. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt.C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Valsala kumari. A. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Agreement executed by the complainant Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to:- (1) Smt. A. Valsalakumari, Ambadiyil, Othara.P.O., Pin – 689 546, Pazhayakavu, Thiruvalla. (2) Anil, Bharath Consultancy, Meleparampil Building, Kizhakken Muthoor, Kuttappuzha.P.O., Thiruvalla – 689 103. (3) The Stock File. | 
