Delhi

East Delhi

CC/535/2014

BHASKAR PANDEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MADU MITA SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 535/14

 

Shri Bhaskjar Pandey

S/o Suresh Chand Pandey

W.P. 214B, Pitam Pura

Delhi – 110 034                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Smt. Madhu Mita Sharma

EMS Consultant

85-A, Ground Floor

Amritpuri Garhi, East of Kailash

New Delhi – 110 065                                                       …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 12.06.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 23.05.2018

Judgement Passed on: 24.05.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Bhaskar Pandey against     Mrs. Madhu Mita Sharma, EMS Consultant (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant deposited a sum of       Rs. 50,000/- vide receipt dated 09.08.2012 with Mrs. Madhu Mita Sharma (OP) for placement.  The complainant visited the office of OP many times, but Mrs. Madhu Mita Sharma (OP) have failed to provide any job.  Thus, the complainant asked for refund of the deposited amount which was clearly denied by OP.  Due to the act and activities of OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed for directions to OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 50,000/-; compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation charges.

3.         In the written statement, filed on behalf of OP, they have stated that complainant was not a consumer and he never paid any amount to OP.

            It was further stated that as per agreement letter dated 09.08.2012 which was annexed with the complaint, if complainant was not satisfied with the services of OP, he could inform OP for refund 20 days prior, but complainant never approached for refund.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.         OP stopped appearing during the course of proceedings.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

5.         The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit where he has examined himself.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.   

6.         We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. From the testimony of the complainant and the documents placed on record, it is noticed that complainant have paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for placement for which receipt has been issued by Mrs. Madhu Mita Sharma (OP).  The fact that Mrs. Madhu Mita Sharma (OP) have received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and have not offered any placement to the complainant, certainly, there has been deficiency on the part of Mrs. Madhu Mita Sharma (OP).  When she has not given the placement on having received the amount, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated. 

            Therefore, it is ordered that Mrs. Madhu Mita Sharma (OP) shall refund an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the principal amount alongwith Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering.  This includes the cost of litigation.  This order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of order.  If not complied, the total amount of Rs. 60,000/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President