BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 392/2002 Filed on 17.09.2002

Dated : 16.08.2010

Complainant:

Cmdr. P.V. Nayar (Retd.), T.C 9/1013, 'Anchorage', Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram-10.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite party:

Women's Charity Mission (Reg. No. T/3333) (Smt. Rajarajeswari, Chairperson), T.C 14/1865, Panchapura, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram-34.

(By adv. R. Balakrishnan Nair)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 23.09.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 01.07.2010, the Forum on 16.08.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant in this case is a widower, retired defence service officer and a senior citizen. He is living alone in a double storeyed house at Sasthamangalam. He approached the opposite party functioning at Palayam for providing a domestic help (house-maid) on 13.06.2001 and paid Rs. 500/- and requested for an honest and trustworthy maid as he is an old man staying alone. However with the first maid who turned up with her 12 years old son, items worth about Rs. 150/- disappeared. When reported, the opposite party refused to admit the theft adding that their maids were thoroughly screened and trained. He was told later that her service had been dispensed with. The incident was forgotten and different maids continued to come twice a week for cleaning work. In mid October 2001, one Thulasi of Malayankeezhu started work. On 3^rd November 2001, Thulasi came at 14.45 hours and went away at 16.45 hours. The next day, theft of some Jewellery from a locked box in the above bedroom was noticed. Due to prompt police intervention, most of the items were recovered from her house and from the shop where she had sold a few items. Women's Charity Mission was informed on 8^th November about the theft in writing. This time they apologized profusely. A week later it was found that a Japanese Sanyo Stereo Walkman was missing. The complainant informed the mission and asked them to try to recover it from Thulasi. But after the earlier police complaint, the girls on duty at the mission office had turned hostile and would not co-operate and gave false names when contacted. The complainant states that the opposite party is solely responsible for the conduct of the supposedly screened maid servants and he was paying Rs. 300/- for every months as retainer fee apart from the wages for the maids. The complainant alleges that opposite party is guilty of breach of trust, misrepresentation of facts etc. and hence liable to make good all the losses in kind and money.

The opposite party, Women's Charity Mission, filed their version contending the entire allegations. The complaint is filed with ulterior bad motives only to cause harassment and also to defame the same. The opposite party states that the opposite party is not responsible in any manner as mentioned by the complainant. The claims cannot be brought into the premises of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant alleges guilty of breach of trust and misrepresentation of facts which are to be proved and established before the competent court of law and not before the Consumer Redressal Forum. On that score itself the complaint is not maintainable and is to be dismissed in limine. The attempt of the complainant is to tarnish the good reputation of the society before the general public. The opposite party which is a charitable society has not done anything violating the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The O.P is only to be dismissed with cost.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced some documents.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The allegation of the complainant is that it is the deficiency of service from the side of opposite party in supplying untrustworthy maids to the complainant. The maids supplied by the opposite party committed theft twice in the house of the complainant and thereby he has sustained financial loss. In this case the complainant has produced some documents, but that documents were not marked, which are photocopies, wrapper of Sanyo Walkman showing picture, receipts given by the opposite party for payments made, letters issued on 08.11.2001, pamphlet of the opposite party and photocopy of complaint dated 23.08.2002 duly received by S.I of Police etc. The complainant did not produce any police report or FIR of the alleged theft or any court order of conviction of the accused. Hence we cannot conclude that the maid provided by the opposite party has actually committed the theft. If the complainant had proved his case that the alleged theft was committed by the maid supplied by the opposite party, then definitely there would be deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. But in this case the complainant has miserably failed to prove this matter with sufficient proofs, in the absence of which this Forum cannot conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of August 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb