Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.

1.       Dr.Ravneet Singh Grover has brought the instant complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the Opposite Parties  are running an agency under the name and style of M/s.Jyoti Placement & Nursing  Bureau Services Private Limited having its head office at New Delhi. As the Opposite Parties  provides maidservants, therefore, the Opposite Parties  approached the complainant at his clinic in the month of February, 2016 told him about the services which were being provided  by their agency & as the complainant wants to hire one maid servant for the house hold work, therefore, the complainant asked from t he Opposite Parties  about the terms and conditions and procedure to hire maid servant and therefore, the complainant agreed to hire the service of maid servant from the Opposite Parties, as such the complainant availed the services of Opposite Parties, hence he is consumer qua the Opposite Parties as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as amended upto date. Thereafter, on 25.2.2016 the Opposite Parties  visited the office of the complainant where terms and conditions incorporated and as per terms and conditions, the complainant made a  total payment of Rs.64,000/- to the Opposite Parties  as Rs.25000/- commission for one year and Rs.39000/- as a advance salary of the maid servant (Rs.6500x6=39000) against proper receipt bearing No.076 dated 25.2.2016.  After completing all the formalities, the Opposite Parties  appointed one Sunita Kumari as maid servant for doing the house hold works of the complainant and she joined her duty on 25.2.2016. Said Sunita Kumari remained in the house of the complainant till the evening of 27.2.2016 and thereafter, without informing the complainant left the house of the complainant and the complainant tried his level best to locate said Sunita but all in vain. Thereafter, the complainant informed the Opposite Parties  regarding the same and asked the Opposite Parties to do the needful, but the Opposite Parties  did not give any satisfactory answer to the complainant which created a doubt in the mind of the complainant and when inspite of best efforts of the complainant, Sunita Kumari could not be traced, the father of the complainant informed the police regarding the same and lodged a report. Thereafter,  the complainant made so many telephonic calls to the Opposite Parties  and asked the Opposite Parties  to return the amount of Rs.64000/- which was charged by the Opposite Parties  at the time of hiring the services of maid servant from the Opposite Parties , but the Opposite Parties  dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or other and finally refused to refund the amount of Rs.64,000/- paid to them. The complainant also got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties  calling them to refund the amount of Rs.64000/- which was charged by the Opposite Parties  for providing maid servant to the complainant, but inspite of service of notice, till date the Opposite Parties  have failed to refund the amount of Rs.64000/- to the complainant. The  complainant has prayed for the following reliefs  through the instant complaint.

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to refund the amount of Rs.64000/- as paid by him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till its realization of amount.

b)      Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

c)       Opposite Parties  be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficient services and for causing harassment and  mental agony to him.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, inspite of due service, none put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties  and as such, the Opposite Parties  were ordered to be proceeded against exparte. 

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered  his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of the brochure on website Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the exparte evidence.

4.       We have heard the representative of the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

5.       From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the Opposite Parties  are running an agency under the name and style of M/s.Jyoti Placement & Nursing  Bureau Services Private Limited having its head office at New Delhi. As the Opposite Parties  provides maidservants, therefore, the Opposite Parties approached the complainant at his clinic in the month of February, 2016 told him about the services which were being provided  by their agency & as the complainant wants to hire one maid servant for the house hold work, therefore, the complainant asked from the Opposite Parties  about the terms and conditions and procedure to hire maid servant and therefore, the complainant agreed to hire the service of maid servant from the Opposite Parties, as such the complainant availed the services of Opposite Parties, hence he is consumer qua the Opposite Parties as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as amended upto date. Thereafter, on 25.2.2016 the Opposite Parties  visited the office of the complainant where terms and conditions incorporated and as per terms and conditions, the complainant made a  total payment of Rs.64,000/- to the Opposite Parties  as Rs.25000/- commission for one year and Rs.39000/- as a advance salary of the maid servant (Rs.6500x6=39000) against proper receipt bearing No.076 dated 25.2.2016.  After completing all the formalities, the Opposite Parties  appointed one Sunita Kumari as maid servant for doing the house hold works of the complainant and she joined her duty on 25.2.2016. Said Sunita Kumari remained in the house of the complainant till the evening of 27.2.2016 and thereafter, without informing the complainant left the house of the complainant and the complainant tried his level best to locate said Sunita but all in vain. Thereafter, the complainant informed the Opposite Parties  regarding the same and asked the Opposite Parties to do the needful, but the Opposite Parties  did not give any satisfactory answer to the complainant which created a doubt in the mind of the complainant and when inspite of best efforts of the complainant, Sunita Kumari could not be traced, the father of the complainant informed the police regarding the same and lodged a report. Thereafter,  the complainant made so many telephonic calls to the Opposite Parties  and asked the Opposite Parties  to return the amount of Rs.64000/- which was charged by the Opposite Parties  at the time of hiring the services of maid servant from the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties  dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or other and finally refused to refund the amount of Rs.64,000/- paid to them. The complainant also got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties  calling them to refund the amount of Rs.64000/- which was charged by the Opposite Parties  for providing maid servant to the complainant, but inspite of service of notice, till date the Opposite Parties  have failed to refund the amount of Rs.64000/- to the complainant. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as  the Opposite Parties,  despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties  have no defence to offer or defend the complaint. The complainant has sought for refund of amount of Rs.64000/- besides compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. In our considered view, all the Opposite Parties  are jointly, severally and co-extensively liable to refund the amount of Rs.64000/- to the complainant. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.1000/-. Opposite Parties  are granted one month time to comply with the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. All the Opposite Parties  are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order.  The complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 16.01.2017.