District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.443/2021.
Date of Institution: 07.09.2021.
Date of Order: 30.08.2022.
Mr. Hindveer Singh s/o late Shri Mahendra Singh R/o AQ 5/21, Firswt floor, BPTP park 81, Sector-81, Faridabad – 121002.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M.R. Placement & Tutors Services (Regd.) through its proprietor Mr. Mukul Chaudhary having office at : E-124, Ground floor, Mohammadpur, Behind Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.
Also at: C-124, 2nd floor, TCT House, Mohammadpur, Behind Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh, Kunwar Pal Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Rawat, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had agreed to engage one ‘Mrs. Prakriti Sunar’. The profile of Mrs. Prakriti Sunar as provided by the opposite party. On 05.04.2021 an associate of the opposite party Mr. Ashutosh came to complainant’s house situated at Faridabad, with Mrs. Prakriti Sunar. The complainant paid the consideration of Rs.30,000/- in light of the service to be provided by opposite party, which was received by the opposite party against which receipt bearing No. 239 dated 05.04.2021 was issued. On the same opposite party had again re-assured given the aforementioned guarantee of 11 months continuous service to the complainant in writing on their letter head bearing No.760 and ref. No. 270. Mrs. Prakriti
Sunar joined her employment with complainant on 05.04.2021. After passing of twenty days of her employment Mrs. Prakriti Sunar informed complainant that she would be leaving the job and going back to her village. Mrs. Prakriti had also informed the same to the opposite party immediately. Thereafter, opposite party had informed that Mrs. Prakriti Sunar would be leaving on the very next date i.e 25.04.2021 And a suitable replacement would be sent on the same date to the complainant that the outstanding payment to Mrs. Prakriti Sunar would only had to be released after the new house help joins her services. However, no such profiles were provided. Mrs. Prakriti Sunar while leaving her employment had given an undertaking to the complainant.
The complainant was blessed with a baby and the hardships of complainant had increased multifold due to the non-providing of house-help by the opposite party. The complainant regularly followed up on the status of house-help. However, opposite party gave false promises to complainant despite being fully aware of the situation of complainant. The complainant had regularly followed up with opposite party via phone calls and whatsapp, however, the opposite party time and again made false assurances to complainant of sending a replacement within a day or two. Opposite party however failed to provide a replacement for a week until 03.05.2021. On 3.5.2021, in the latter half of the day, one Ms. Anita Nepali was sent to the complainant’s residence in Faridabad to join as a house help. The complainant had then cleared the outstanding amount of Rs.7500/- by transferring the same directly to Mrs. Prakriti Sumar on 04.05.2021.. Ms. Anita Nepali soon cited personal reasons and informed the opposite party (Mr. Mukul Chaudhary) and the complainant that she would be leaving her employment. The opposite party had thereafter informed complainant that Ms. Anita Nepali would be leaving for her native eon the 18th of May 2021 and a replacement maid would be sent to the complainant on the said date. However, Ms. Anita Nepali left abruptly with short notice and no help was sent by opposite party. The complainant due to sudden shuffling and instability of house helps provided by the opposite party, war facing immense troubles. The complainant had expressed his reservation on the same as a new born infant was at home and frequent change of house help during the Covid-19 pandemic was not feasible keeping in mind the challenging times. After incessant follow ups complainant was forced to reiterate his request to refund the complete amount of complainant. Opposite party again via call on 12.06.2021 had assured complainant that a house-help would be sent on 14.06.2021 (Monday) failing which the money would be refunded within a week. It was noteworthy that opposite party had failed to provide a replacement by 14.06.2021 as promised. Opposite party failed to arrange a replacement on 14.06.2021 and left no option complainant had to engage a house help using his own connects. The complainant reserves his right to place the call recording dated 12.06.2021 alongwith its transcript on record if the need arises or as directed by this Hon’ble Court. Being aggrieved by the acts of the opposite party, the complainant was forced to send a legal notice dated 2.07.2021 to the opposite party calling upon the opposite party to refund the outstanding amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and remit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in light of the mental harassment and cruelty caused by the opposite party. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant forthwith due to deficient services and unfair trade practice.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay interest 17% p.a. from the date the amount was paid to the opposite party till the date of filing the present complaint due to deficient services and unfair trade practices.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the opposite party had been engaged in its business of placement services at the address mentioned in the complainant. During the course of business, the complainant approached the opposite party to provide some maid for his house for doing his household work and accordingly, the opposite party provided a maid namely Ms. Prakarti Sunar wife of Sh. Hukam Sunar to the complainant on 03.04.2021. Said Prakarti Sunar was well known Hindi and she belongs to Nepal. She was having experience of 2 years in doing he house old work including Indian cooking etc. The complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- with the opposite party on06.04.02021 vide receipt No. 279. After long discussion, the salary of above named maid was fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month to be given by the complainant. Said Prakarti Sunar was giving proper service to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, but it was the complainant who started to blame here and stated that he did not want to keep any more said Ms. Prakarti Sunar as house-maid in his house. Thereafter, the opposite party provided another house-maid to the complainant, namely Mrs. Anita Nepali wife of Mr. Dev Bahadur Nepali8. She was having her qualification 10th passed and 2 years experience of cooking, baby care and domestic work. The opposite party provided her Bio-data bearing Sr. No. 622 dated 03.05.2021 to the complainant and since then said Anita Nepali started to do household work at the house of the complainant, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, but it was the complainant, who started to level false allegations against said Ms. Anita Nepali on account of cooking food etc. and he refused to take more service from her. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– M.R.Placement & Tutorss Services (Regd.) with the prayer to: a) refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant forthwith due to deficient services and unfair trade practice. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)pay interest 17% p.a. from the date the amount was paid to the opposite party till the date of filing the present complaint due to deficient services and unfair trade practices.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/9A- affidavit of Hindveer Singh, Ex.CW1/(OSR) – Adhaar carad,, Ex.CW1/2 (OSR) – Bio data, Ex.CW1/3(OSR)receipt dated 5.4.2021, Ex.CW1/4 (OSR) - letter dated 5.4.2021, Ex.CW1/5 – statement of Dinesh Kuamr,, Ex.CW1/6(OSR) – statement of Anita, Ex.CW1/7(colly) – legal notice,Ex.CW1/8 (colly) –Transcript of call dated 24.08.2021, Ex.CW1/10 – preliminary objections and submissions.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Mul Chaudhary,, ex.R-1 – receipt, Ex.R-2 – Clients details, Ex.R-3 – bio data,, Ex.R-4 – adhaar card,, Ex.R-5 – bio data, Ex.R-6 – certificate.
6. During the course of arguments, Shri Ravinder Rawat, counsel for opposite party has made a statement that “I am ready to give security balance amount i.e.25,000/- to the complainant.”
7. On the basis of the statement of counsel for opposite party as well as evidence on behalf of both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed with the direction to opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 30.08.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
