By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is a resident of Sulthan Bathery in Wayanad and opposite party is conducting placement services and manpower supply in different parts of Kerala through agents and having their office at Kottayam. The complainant availed services from the opposite party through their agents. The complainant paid Rs.10,750/- on 27.02.2013 including service charge and remuneration of the proposed helper and availed the service of one Mrs. Kunjumol as house maid. She started her work at complainant's house on 28.02.2013, but she couldn't adjust the climate in Wayanad and immediately she intimated her difficulties to opposite party, and she also requested to the opposite party to permit her to return her house at Kottayam. The complainant consulted with the opposite party and as per opposite party's request complainant again paid Rs.1,000/- as bus charge to this maid servant and sent her back. The opposite party given an assurance of refund of collected amount from the complainant, after few days complainant demanded to return the amount but opposite party offered the amount through Bank Account. Thereafter opposite party said one or other excuses and not refunded the amount so far. According to complainant this act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice. Then complainant issued a Registered Legal Notice to opposite party. Opposite party received that and replied with repeated assurance of refund with untenable conditions. According to complainant this attitude of the opposite party is gross negligence, so he demands to return the money paid that is Rs.11,750/- with interest and compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of this proceedings.
2. Notice served to opposite party, Opposite party filed version.
3. Opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter, no transaction has taken place or there is no agreement between these parties. The complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party. No personal service is rendered by the opposite party in her name or in her personal capacity and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a Registered customer of opposite party. Opposite party has not committed to avail any personal service. The opposite party is working as a staff in “Asraya” a man power consultancy having its office at Kottayam. The complainant only contacted the said office through telephone requesting for a servant, he had not paid any amount to the office. She again stated that it was known to the opposite party that even though the complainant has not appeared in person. The said firm has sent a worker to the residence of the complainant, she was well familiar with Wayanad, its climate and people. Due to the said reason the said maid was chosen and sent directly to approach the complainant. The opposite party denies the averments that the said maid Mrs. Kunjumol could not adjust the climate in Wayanad. She further stated that this Kunjumol was totally fitted to the needs of complainant. But on her knowledge, that the said Kunjumol belongs to Harijan community the complainant refused her to enter in the kitchen, living room or other rooms. This is the complainant who said that they cannot adjust with a low caste woman and the complainant on his own motion and choice get rid of the said Kunjumol by giving her bus fare to get away from them. The opposite party had not issued any receipts for the payment.
4. Opposite party further states that the complainant had not demanded any amount other than the Legal Notice dated 18.03.2013, in the reply opposite party admitted that opposite party is ready and willing to exercise her duty if the complainant approaches her with proper documents. The opposite party cannot deviate from the terms and conditions imposed by the firm in exercise of her duty. No unfair trade practice arises against this opposite party. There is no negligence from the part of opposite party. Hence she prays for the dismissal of the case.
5. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
6. Point No.1:- The complainant filed chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the printed format of “Asraya” placement services executed by both complainant and opposite party dated 27.02.2013, it includes the terms and conditions of Asraya placement services along with the description of complainant, worker, salary, advance, service charge and registration fees etc... Ext.A2 is the Legal Notice sent to opposite party by the complainant dated 18.03.2013. Ext.A3 is the Reply Notice of opposite party dated 01.04.2013. The opposite party not adduced any evidence to defend the case. Opposite party never appeared before this Forum, otherthan sent the version by post. On going through the documents produced by the complainant we finds that there is an agreement between the complainant and opposite party. The agreement is written in the letter head of “Asraya” Placement services. In the agreement we found that opposite party received Rs.10,250/- from the complainant as salary advance of Rs.8,000/-, service charge of Rs.2,000/- and registration fee of Rs.250/-. The Legal Notice and its reply also gives clear evidence of the payments. Even though opposite party denies all the allegation and averments in the complaint, there is clear admission of the case in Para No.3 of the version, opposite party admitted in the version that she sent a worker named Kunjumol to complainant's house. The complainant himself sent her back after giving bus fare to get away her from them. Any way complainant paid Rs.10,250/- to opposite party to get service from opposite party, unfortunately the maid left the place the money paid in advance is now with the opposite party. Ext.A1 shows the description of payment, complainant paid Rs.250/- as Registration Fee. As per the terms and conditions of “Asraya” placement and manpower supply the amount collected as Registration Fee will not be returned. Opposite party also collected Rs.2,000/- as service charge but complainant could not avail the service of opposite party. The maid started her work with complainant on 28.02.2013 the very next day itself she left the place. So complainant is entitled to get back the half of service charge that is Rs.1,000/-. In Ext.A3 the opposite party admitted that she is ready to refund the amount if complainant approach her office with proper documents. In Para No.4 of the version also opposite party admitted that she is ready and willing to exercise her duty, if the complainant approaches her with proper documents. Only difficulty is that the complainant never approached opposite party with proper documents. All the documents produced by the complainant before this Forum is sufficient to prove his case. Instead of comply the request of opposite party, the complainant filed this petition before this Forum. If that be so some amount is with opposite party. The opposite party is also ready to return the amount. So the complainant is entitled to get back the advance amount he had already given to the opposite party. The Points No1 & 2 decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to return Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) only that is the amount received as salary advance to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to return the half of service charge that is Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Otherwise opposite party is directed to pay interest - @ 10% per annum till payment. There is no Order as to cost and compensation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of November 2013.
Date of Filing:26.04.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
(Contd...6)
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Rajesh. (Chief Affidavit). Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Terms and conditions of Asraya (Placement Service
and Manpower supply).
A2. Copy of Legal Notice. Dt:18.03.2013.
A3. Reply Notice. Dt:01.04.2013.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
