BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

 02^ND DAY OF MARCH 2016

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,   MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against OP to refund Rs.8,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a., and compensation of Rs.50,000/-and cost on the allegations of deficiency of service. 

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

OP is a domestic maid agency.  Complainant is a visually impaired old woman aged about 50 Years living along with her widowed mother aged about 80 years.  Since, complainant is working during the office hours, she wanted to have a full time domestic maid who could assist her mother in the house hold work and also in cooking.  On 15.10.2014 complainant approached OP through phone for the purpose of getting a maid through them.  The said call was answered by a woman named Roopa.  Complainant conveyed her requirement of availing a full time maid servant who would reside along with complainant and her mother in her apartment to help them in day to day work.  On hearing complainant’s requirement Ms.Roopa explained the procedure for the registration, she informed complainant that Rs.8,000/- was to be paid for the registration fee and a domestic maid is available for salary of Rs.7,000/-  per month and she is ready to provide the service from the same day.  Thereafter, complainant got several calls from OP to make the payment towards registration fee immediately.  OP sent a woman by name Ms.Rathna on the same day, who accompanied by Ms.Nagamani who is a domestic maid servant.  On completion of paper work for registration, complainant made payment of Rs.5,000/- to Ms.Rathna and  informed them to collect the balance amount of Rs.3,000/- at the shortest possible time. Ms.Nagamani stayed in the complainant’s residence from 15.10.2014. On 18.10.2014, the proprietor of OP came to the complainant’s residence to collect balance sum of Rs.3,000/-.  Complainant made the payment on the very same day and she was given a receipt.  On 01.11.2014 after completing about 15 days work, the maid Ms.Nagamani requested for leave of 2 to 3 days.  Since, complainant was not prepared for the request, informed her she could not take leave.  On 11.11.2014 the said maid requested for 2 to 3 days leave and also advance payment of salary of Rs.7,000/- for the month of November 2014.  Complainant paid the amount and also gave the permission to take leave.  Though, the maid promised to return back within two days, she never kept her promise, she remained absent ever since.  After 2 to 3 days complainant called OP office and informed that Ms.Nagamani was on leave from 11.01.2014 and she has not returned back and also made a request for replacement as agreed under their terms and conditions for replacement.  The proprietor of OP was not available on that day at the office and they promised that the replacement would be provided at the earliest, but even after several days of waiting there was no response from OP.  During this time complainant underwent an emergency hip replacement surgery and she was bedridden. The nursing assistant helped her in this durations, but complainant’s 80 years old mother had no one to help her in the house-hold work/cooking.  Complainant was in helpless condition, bedridden being visually impaired.  Since, 15.11.2014 she called OP several times for the replacement of the maid as promised on their registration papers.  But not even once OP took her call after collecting money from her.  The office always gave a vague reply stating that they will looking into it and the proprietor of OP is not accessible on the mobile phone number.  Complainant wanted to inform him that he did not need the maid sent by them, as she had employed another maid in her desperate situation.  During this time complainant was made to face a lot of problems in the household work and without a domestic help her mother had to face unexpected hardships due to irresponsible manner in which OP handled the situation carelessly.  OP took advantage of her visual impairment after collecting heavy registration amount as fee and has not provided the promised help/replacement, and made the situation grave, inspite of several requests since 11.11.2014.  Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Under the circumstances, she is advised to file this complaint against OP for appropriate relief.

3.  After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OP.  Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause.  Hence OP was placed exparte and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.

4. So as to prove her case, Ms.Madhu Singhal, who being the complainant filed her affidavit by way of evidence in support of her complaint reiterating the complaint averments and also filed written arguments.

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged. OP neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. Let us have a cursory glance at the documents produced by the complainant.  Document No.1 is copy of the Bio-Data of the maid servant Ms.Nagamani issued by OP along with ID proof.  Document No.2 is copy of the cash receipt issued by OP dated 15.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.3,000/-.  Document No.3 is the copy of the another receipt dated 18.12.2007 for a sum of Rs.3,000/- issued by OP to the complainant. Since this receipt is dated 18.12.2007, it is barred by limitation.  Document No.4 and 5 are copies of the service agreements dated 15.10.2014 and dated nil issued by OP to the complainant during the payment of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/-.  Document No.6 is copy of the brochure/visiting card. Document No.7 is copy of the notice of the complainant dated 28.05.2015 calling upon OP to answer her complaint within 8 days failing which to refund Rs.8,000/- paid towards registration charges along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, it is made crystal clear that complainant who is appeared before this Forum is visually impaired 56 years old lady living with her widowed mother aged about 80 years, was in dire need of full time domestic maid, who could assist her mother in her daily house hold work like cooking etc.  Hence, on 15.10.2014 complainant contacted OP.  On hearing her requirement OP explained the procedure and collected Rs.8,000/- on 15.10.2014 towards registration fee as per Document No.2  receipt  issued by OP.  OP also sent a lady maid by name Ms.Nagamani.  The said maid worked for about 26 days only.  Thereafter, the said maid took leave for 2-3 days with a promise to return back within two days but remained absent ever since.  Complainant requested OP for replacement.  OP failed to respond.  Complainant underwent hip replacement surgery.  That time her mother aged about 80 years was left with no help.  Complainant tried to contact proprietor of OP but in vain.  Even after lapse of 6 months OP failed to resolve the issue.  Left with no alternative complainant issued notice dated 28.05.2015 calling upon OP to answer her complaint within 8 days failing which she will approach Consumer Forum for redressal. OP failed to respond.  Hence, this complaint.

8. From the available materials on record, it is clear that OP having accepted Rs.8,000/- as registration charges from the complainant has failed to provide the replacement as per clause 3 of the helpline service terms and conditions, OP is liable for replacement of the candidate, if customer is not satisfied with the candidate provided.  Inspite of repeated requests and notice OP has neither responded nor provided the replacement of the maid as agreed.  Hence complainant issued notice dated 28.05.2015 as per Document No.7 calling upon OP to refund Rs.8,000/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony within 8 days failing which she will approach Consumer Forum for redressal.  There was no response.  OP having collected huge amount of Rs.8,000/- from a visually impaired complainant, has failed to provide the replacement of maid as agreed under the service agreement terms.  Inspite of notice OP has failed to respond.  This act of OP made the complainant to approach this Forum by spending her precious time, energy and money besides she being a visually impaired person.  This act of OP in neither providing replacement of maid nor refunding the amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Since OP has failed to contest the matter, there is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant.  We are satisfied that complainant proved deficiency in service against OP.  Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the OP shall be to refund Rs.8,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. 

2. OP is directed to refund Rs.8,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in services and hardship caused, together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

3. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the  02^nd day of March 2016)

MEMBER                          MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

NRS* 

COMPLAINT NO.1108/2015

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP – Absent

List of documents produced by the OPs– Nil

MEMBER                             MEMBER                         PRESIDENT