Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII,      5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                               Complaint Case No. 103/2021

Richa Suri

r/o 29/11, Old Rajinder Nagar,

New Delhi-110060                                                                  …Complainant

                                      Versus

OP1- M. Placement

The Homely Care (through Mr. Abhishek Verma)

36, Ground Floor, R. K. Plaza, Sector-21,

Rohini, Delhi-110086

Also at: Corporate Office

Bungalow No.24, Pocket 16, (Opp. Mother Dairy)

Sector 20, Rohini, Delhi-110086. 

OP2- Ms. Charu

36, Ground Floor, R. K. Plaza, Sector-21,

Rohini, Delhi-110086                                                    ...Opposite Party

                                                                   Date of filing:            12.10.2021

Coram:                                                                       Date of Order:            12.08.2024

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female

                                                FINAL ORDER

Rashmi Bansal, Member

By the present order, the Commission is disposing of complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of OPs in providing appropriate maid / domestic help despite receiving complete consideration for the same.

1. Complainant case:

1. The complainant engaged the services of OP1, a registered company that provides placement services for maids and household help through its authorised representatives and agents, for securing a maid to care for her 16-month-old baby. An agreement was executed on 02.03.2021, with an advance commission/security payment of Rs. 20,000/- acknowledged by OP2, who assured the complainant that the maids provided would be proficient in child care, as this was a predetermined requirement.On 02.03.2021, a maid named "Reshma" was provided. However, after two days, Reshma disclosed her inability to care for a baby and expressed a desire to return back her home, revealing that she had been instructed by the OPs to withhold this information. Despite reassurances from the OPs, Reshma's mother came to take her home on 04.03.2021, and the complainant discharged her after paying her salary for two days.Subsequently, on 07.03.2021, another maid named "Pooja" was provided with assurances of her proficiency in child care. After three days, Pooja also expressed her inability to care for a baby and also stated that she was told by OPs to keep quiet about it and left on 10.03.2021after receiving her salary for 3.5 days.
2. The complainant submits that she faced significant difficulties due to these incidents since no maid was staying and those who were provided by OPs were not trained in taking care of babyand requested a refund from the OPs. Initially, the OPs agreed to refund the amount but later stated that only 50% would be refunded according to company policy. The complainant contested this, noting the absence of such a clause in the agreement dated 02.03.2021. She alleges that the OPs engaged in unfair trade practices, fraud, cheating, and wrongful retention of her money, causing severe mental harassment and posing a safety risk to her baby.
3. The complainant asserts that OP1 and OP2 operate jointly and OP2 acts as a franchisee of OP1. Therefore, both are jointly and vicariously liable. The complainant seeks the refund of the Rs. 20,000/- commission/security amount from the OPs, jointly and severally, with interest at 18% per annum. Additionally, she seeks Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and torture, and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards litigation costs.
4. In support of her case, the complainant has submitted the following documents:
   1. Agreement dated 02.03.2021
   2. Letters from maid Reshma and her mother
   3. Letter from maid Pooja acknowledging receipt of her salary

2. OPs’ case: Upon notice OPs appeared and initially same counsel represented OP1 and OP2. The OP1 accepted notice for and on behalf of both OPs but written statement has been filed by OP1 exclusively.  The OP2 has not filed her written statement.
   1. OP1 states that no agreement was entered between complainant and OP1 and no amount was received by OP1 from the complainant, thatthe complainant has falsely implicated OP1 just to extort money as the entire allegations alleged by the complainant are cooked up and concocted story.
   2. OP1 submits that initially, a maid named Reshma was provided by OP2, who performed her duties adequately. However, the complainant continually harassed and pressured Reshma to perform additional household tasks, leading to her leave the job. Subsequently, on March 7, 2021, OP2 provided another maid, Pooja, who also performed her duties of caring for the baby satisfactorily. Despite this, the complainant harassed and coerced Pooja into doing extra household work beyond her working hours, resulting in her resignation as well. OP1 further submits that the complainant is known to be short-tempered and frequently becomes aggressive without any apparent reason. Moreover, OP1 asserts that all candidates were recruited by OP2 and no payments were made to OP1. Therefore, any liabilities regarding replacement, refunds or legal proceedings should rest with OP2 and OP1 is not responsible for any claims made by the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed a rejoinder, objecting to the written statement of the OPs on the grounds that it was filed beyond the statutory period of 45 days and was not properly signed, verified and notarized. The verification of OP1's affidavit is dated April 2014, whereas the copy was handed to the complainant's counsel on May 17, 2022. This discrepancy invalidates the verification, as it predates the complaint filing, rendering the verification defective and nullifying both the affidavit and the written statement.

Further, as per the copy of written statement that supplied to complainant, it comprises two affidavits, one is of OP1 and another of Ms. Charu, OP2, however, on cross checking with court records, it is discovered that Ms. Charu's affidavit was not filed on record, indicating an attempt to deceive the complainant into believing that affidavits were submitted on behalf of both the OPs. Thus, the complainant argues that OP1's written statement should be removed from the record, and OPs should be barred from filing further statements, as the statutory period has expired.

Additionally, the complainant asserts that OP2, as OP1's franchisee, signed the agreement, received the commission/security on behalf of OP1, recruited the maids and placed them under OP1's name. Therefore, both parties are jointly and severally liable for a refund and other legal consequences. The agreement dated March 2, 2021, with OP1's name and logo, supports this claim.

4. Both the complainant and OP1 have filed their respective evidence. The complainant relies on documents submitted with the complaint, while OP1 has not filed any documents.
5. The Commission had heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents on record.
   1. The present complaint was under the name "Richa Suri," while the documents submitted in support of the complaint bear the name "Richa Malhotra." During the proceedings, the complainant clarified that after marriage her name was changed from "Richa Suri" to "Richa Malhotra". Consequently, all relevant documents were signed under the name "Richa Malhotra." The complainant provided her marriage certificate and an affidavit stating that her official post-marriage name is "Richa Suri Malhotra." Thus, "Richa Suri," "Richa Malhotra," and "Richa Suri Malhotra" all refer to the same individual. The OP1 did not dispute the complainant's identity and acknowledged all transactions carried out by her, thereby it is establishing the identity of complainant. After this determination, the Commission proceed to address the complaint.
   2. The complainant's objection regarding OP1's written statement, not being properly signed, verified and notarized, is to be addressed first. The written statement is dated April 7, 2022 and is attested by an Oath Commissioner on the same date. However, the verification clause is dated April 2014, likely a typographical error. Since the written statement was attested post-complaint filing, it is technically valid. Furthermore, the written statement falls within the limitation period extended to May 29, 2022, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo-moto WP - 3/2020.  Hence, the complainant's objection is rejected.
   3. On merit, it is undisputed that OP1 is a registered company providing maid placement services through authorized representatives, with OP2 as its franchisee. The agreement dated March 2, 2021, was executed between OP1 and complainant duly signed by OP2, and acknowledges the receipt of a Rs. 20,000/- advance security. The maids provided under this agreement left shortly after joining Reshma on March 4, 2021, and Pooja on March 10, 2021.
   4. The agreement bearing OP1's name and logo indicates that OP1 provides services through its representatives/franchises. The Rs. 20,000/- receipt by Ms. Charu, acknowledged in the agreement, is admitted by OP1. OP1's claim that OP2 retained the consideration is not convincing since agreement is between OPs and the complainant. The recruitment was done with OP1's knowledge and consent. As the principal service provider, OP1 is responsible for executing the agreement and cannot shift liability to OP2. The agreement's lack of terms for consequences of failure, like refunds, indicates OP1's involvement in unfair trade practices. Additionally, OP1 did not consider the suitability of maids vis- à- vis complainant's needs. The maids, aged 15-17, were unsuitable for baby care. OP1's failure to provide effective services constitutes a deficiency.
   5. OP1's allegations regarding the complainant's behaviour are inconsistent as on the one hand he asserts that his role was over after recruitment but on the other side he asserts as if he is ocular witness, but maid has not made any such allegation, thus it holds no legal weight. The agreement specifies that domestic helpers should perform household activities, including cleaning, cooking help, ironing, washing clothes, and childcare. OP1's general allegation that the maids were asked to work beyond their scope is untenable.
   6. Based on the above, it is established that OP1 failed to fulfil its commitment to provide domestic help per the agreement dated March 2, 2021, leading to a deficiency in services and causing mental trauma, agony, and harassment to the complainant. As OP2 acted as OP1's franchise/agent, OP1 is liable for OP2's actions and the consequences of the agreement. Both inexperienced maids left within days of appointment after receiving their salaries and did not work as agreed upon by OP1, entitling the complainant to a refund of Rs. 20,000/- from OP1 and OP2.
   7. The complainant's request for 18% p.a. interest on delayed refunds lacks evidence of a demand and refusal, so a simple interest of 6% p.a. on Rs. 20,000/- from the complaint filing date (October 20, 2021) until realization is appropriate.
   8. The complainant's demand for compensation in lieu of loss, injury, mental agony, and torture is acknowledged. A compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment, inconvenience, and mental agony is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and is being awarded, payable by OP1 and OP2.
   9. The litigation cost demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- by complainant is excessive; Rs.5,000/- is appropriate and is awarded as litigation costs, payable by OP1 and OP2.

6. Conclusion: on the basis of the above discussion, OP1 and OP2 are directed, jointly and/or severally,  as follows:

 B. to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation;

 C. to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost;

 (October 20, 2021) till the payment is made to the complainant besides payment of compensation and  litigation cost. OP1 and OP2  may deposit the said amount within time in the Registry of this Commission by way of valid instrument in the name of the complainant.

7. The copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules and the file be consigned to record room.
8. Announced on 12.08.2024.