Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/527

HARDAYAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANISHA ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

      CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                         Date of institution:06.08.2015    

Complaint Case. No.527/15                                                                                        Date of order:  14.01.2017                    

IN  MATTER OF

Hardayal Singh S/o Late Shri Joginder Singh, R/o G-138, Hari Nagar, New Delhi                                                                                                                                                                   Complainant

VERSUS

Manisha Enterprises, B-81, B-Block, Vikas Nagar, Bharat Wali Gali, Near Commander Chowk, Ranholla Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-1100059                                        Opposite party-1

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

 

  The present complaint is filed by Shri  Hardyal Singh herein  complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for directions  to the opposite party to refund Rs 20,000/- and pay compensation on account of deficiency in service.

The brief relevant necessary facts for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant paid 20,000/- to opposite party to provide maid servant as advance salary of a maid service. The opposite party vide agreement dated 21.5.2015 agreed to provide Sangeeta Kumari maid servant at place of complainant on monthly salary Rs 6000/-. The domestic help Sangeeta Kumari left the house of complainant on 8.6.15. But as per the agreement she had to work for eleven months. The opposite party failed to provide services of a maid servant despite receipt of Rs 20,000/- as advance salary  and used unfair trade practices to extract money from the complainant. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to refund Rs20,000/-along with interest @18% per annum and pay compensation of Rs 20,000/- for sufferings and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party. But none appeared on their behalf.  Therefore, opposite party was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.5.2016.

When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence, he filed affidavit dated 2.8.16 and relied upon copy of agreement dated 21.05.2016 and copy of complaint to Hari Nagar Police station, New Delhi. He has narrated facts of the complaint once again in the affidavit. He deposed that the Opposite party had to provide maid servant as per agreement dated 21.05.2016. But they failed to provide the maid servant as per the agreement and adopted unfair trade practice to extract money from the complainant. The complainant also lodged complaint with police station Hari Nagar.  

 On perusal of the documents, it reveals that complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- to the opposite party of commission and advance salary of a maid servant.The maid servant was to be provided for eleven months on monthly salary of Rs 6000/-. The agreement dated 21.05.2015 shows that if the maid servant leaves the work than opposite party will provide replacement within 15 days.  

We have heard complainant in person and have through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence and version of the complainant. The complainant from the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence has been able to show that he paid Rs. 20,000/- to opposite party for hiring services for maid servant for eleven months. The opposite party promised to provide replacement in case the maid servant is unable to do the job for any reason. Sangeeta came on job on 21.05.2015. She left the job on 08.06.2015 within 18 days. The opposite party failed to provide substitute. The opposite party adopted unfair trade practice.  The complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 20,000/- advance paid by the complainant. They are also liable to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

In the light of above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. There is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of opposite party. Therefore, we direct opposite party to pay Rs. 20,000/- paid by the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from filing the complainant till actual realization. We also award compensation of Rs. 2,000/- on account of mental and physical pain and  agony.

Order pronounced on : 14.01.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                    (URMILA GUPTA)                                        (R.S.  BAGRI)

   MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT