DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.400/2016
Sh. Abhishek Mishra
S/o Sh. Akhilesh Misra
R/o House No. 33/4,
3rd Floor, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi - 110008 ….Complainant
Versus
Mona Creation
Through its Proprietor
Sh. Pawan Kumar,
Office at:- O-57, Ground Floor,
Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
New Delhi - 110024
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 01.12.2012
Date of Order : 25.01.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The complainant has prayed for refund of sum of Rs. 40,000/- paid by them to the OP along with interest @ 18% per annum and damages in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental harassment and torture. The Complainant availed the services of OP for providing a housemaid for his house. He claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to OP for providing the said service. In pursuance of the above services, OP provided one maid named Smt. Nirmala Thapa at a salary of Rs 10,000/- per month to complainant on 27th January 2016. An agreement was executed between the parties to this effect. It is stated that Smt. Nirmala Thapa worked at the house of the complainant for a period of three months only and ran away after receiving her salary on 26th April 2016. It is further stated that OP following repeated requests of complainant placed another housemaid by the name of Smt. Ravina Thapa at the salary of Rs. 12,000 per month w.e.f 25th May 2016 who served the complainant only for a period of one month. The complainant in the month of July 2016 approached the OP and asked him either to place another maid at his house or refund the sum of Rs. 40,000/- paid to him which was turned down by the OP. The complainant further alleges deficiency of service on the part of OP because of their failure to provide copy of identification of the respective maids thereby not letting the complainant to fulfill the requirement of doing the police verification of the maids.
The OP filed a written statement beyond the period of 45 days hence vide order dated 18.08.2017, the defence of OP was struck off.
Complainant filed an affidavit by way of evidence reiterating contents of complaint. Written submissions has not been filed on behalf of OP.
This Commission has gone through the complaint, documents filed along with it and evidence filed by complainant. This Commission is of the view since the OP provided two maids to the complainant over a period of five months and as per the terms of Agreement dated 27.01.2016 replacement was to be provided but was not provided for the remaining period. The OP is directed to refund the proportionate amount out of Rs.40,000/- i.e Rs.30,000/-to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order. The complaint is accordingly partially allowed with no order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
