Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/870

DINESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAA DURGA PLACEMENT AGENCY - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

Case No. 870/2015  

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Flat no. 722, Sec-13, PKT-B,

Dwarka New Delhi-78

                                                                 ….. Complainant

 

                       VERSUS

 

Maa Durga Placement Agency,

C-3/76, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-58

                                                                          ……Opposite Party

 

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh named above herein the complainant  has filed the present consumer complaint against O.P under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly the facts of the complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant met Ms. V.Mehta director and Mr. Ashutosh son of Ms. V. Mehta of the opposite party on 26.01.2014 for hiring maid servant. The complainant paid Rs. 18,200/- to the opposite party on 26.01.2014 and maid servant named Urmila was provided for eleven months on payment of service charges and registration. The opposite party assured that the maid servant will look after the son of the complainant and will also perform house hold work. But the maid within an hour refused to perform her duties and left the residence of the complainant. The complaint immediately informed the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party assured the complainant that another maid servant will be provided next day that is on 27.01.2014. But the opposite party neither contacted the complainant nor provided any maid servant even after two days. The complainant had to make alternative arrangements. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite party to refund Rs. 18,200/- the amount paid to the opposite party. But the opposite party refused to pay the amount initially but after some persuasion by the complainant, OP promised to return the amount. Despite the promises the opposite party failed to return the amount to the complainant. The complainant also lodged complaint against the opposite party on 20.02.2014 and also sent two notices to the opposite party. But to no effect. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to refund Rs. 18,200/- with interest and compensation along with litigation expenses.

         Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP. None put in appearance on behalf of OP and is proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.03.2016.

        When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, he tendered his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. He relied on Annexure-1 receipt with terms and conditions dated 26.01.2014, Annexure -2 seeking information under RTI dated 25.09.2014 and complaint to SHO, Janak puri, New Delhi.

        From the perusal of the documents placed on record it reveals that the complainant paid Rs. 18,200/- to the opposite party for hiring maid servant. The agreement dated 26.01.2014 shows that if maid servant leaves the work than the opposite party will provide five replacements.      

        We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of complainant.

        The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve unrebutted and unchallenged version of the complainant. The complainant from unrebutted and unchallenged evidence and documents succeeded to show that he paid Rs. 18,200/- to the opposite party for hiring services for maid servant for eleven months. But the maid servant provided by the opposite party left within few hours of hiring. The opposite party promised to provide replacement in case maid servant leaves the job. The opposite party failed to provide substitute. The opposite party adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on its part. The complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to refund Rs.18,200/- the amount paid by the complainant and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- for compensation and litigation expenses.

        In light of above discussion and observations the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 18,200/- paid by the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the complaint till actual realization within 45 days from receipt of this order. We also award compensation of Rs. 2,000/- on account of mental and physical agony, harassment and litigation expenses.   

File be consigned to the record room.    

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

  Announced  this__22^nd ____ day of ___ January ______ 2019.

(K.S. MOHI)                                                             (PUNEET LAMBA)

  President                                                                          Member