CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, President(I/C)

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

                                            

CC No 35/12

                                                             Friday the 17^th day of August, 2012

 

Petitioner                                              : M.Gopinathan,

                                                               Sudarsana, Karapuzha,

                                                               Kottayam-686 003.

                                                               (Present Address)

                                                                Flat A-1, Olive Yard,

                                                                Wexco Homes, Puthenangadi

                                                                Kottayam-686 001.

 

                                                            Vs.

Opposite party                                     :   Mrs. Shone Thomas,

                                                                Prompt Services,

                                                                Vaniapurakal Buildings,

                                                                 Good Shepherd Road,

                                                                 Opp.Baselius College,

                                                                 Kottayam.

                                                                (Adv.George Emmanuel Podipara)   

 

 

            The case of the complainant presented on 24-1-12 is as follows. For the last 4 to 5 years, the complaints have been hiring security personnel from the opposite party. For the 1^st time in March 2010, the complainants hired a daytime maid servant from the opposite party. One month’s salary/wages as deposit and Rs.2250/- for 3 months service at the beginning of each quarter were paid as conditions of the opposite party. In October 2011, the maid servant supplied by the opposite party left without giving service for the period agreed. The complainant had immediately informed the opposite party in person. The abrupt stopping of service and the Agency’s inability to provide a substitute caused hardship, which was also informed to the opposite party. The complainant sent letters to the opposite party’s on 29-11-2011 and

5-12-2011. In spite of repeated requests, the opposite party refused to refund the Rs.2250/- collected from the complainant. The opposite party abused and threatened the complainant over the telephone. She even went to the extent of mentioning that she could very easily tarnish the complainant by making some of her employees lodge complaints against him. Hence this complaint.

            The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has not included the necessary party in the party array. Hence the complaint is non-joinder of necessary party. On 1-10-10 the complainant applied for a home nurse for his residence and entered into an agreement with the opposite party and opposite party had arranged one servant to the complainant. The complainant was well aware that the registration fee was not refundable. The opposite party was conducting the business for the last 20 years as proper and without any fault or complaint. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the opposite party has not liable to refund the registration fees. So the complaint is dismissed with costs.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Ext.B1 to B6.

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not refund the registration fee to him. According to him the opposite party was liable to refund the registration fee to the complainant. The opposite party has taken a contention that the complainant was not entitled the refund of registration fees. According to the opposite party the registration fee was not refundable as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Admittedly the home nurse was not continuing to the complainant’s house as per the agreement. The servant was allotted to the complainant for the period of3 months. But the servant was not continuing the service as stipulated by the opposite party. The complainant and his wife was a senior citizen wants the help of the servant. The complainant had some inconveniences and hardship due to the act of the servant. There was no evidence to show that on what reason the home nurse was dis-continue her job. However the complainant had some inconvenience and hardship due to the act of the home nurse. More over the complainant had deposit the one month salary to the opposite party in advance. So we are of the opinion that the deposited registration fee should be refunded to the complainant due to the servant discontinued from the service. Hence we allow the complaint as follows.

            We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant and pay Rs.250/- as costs of these proceedings.

            The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment.

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

           

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, President(I/C) Sd/-    

 

Ext.A1-is the copy of receipt dtd 4-9-11

Ext.A2-is the copy of receipt dtd 3-3-10

Ext.B1-is the registration form dtd 3-3-10

Ext.B2-is the copy of agreement

Ext.B3-is the copy of registration form dtd 7-9-11

 

 

By Order,