DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2023.
Filed on: 08/03/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC No. 148/2022
COMPLAINANT
Dr. Reena Rosy Nelson , D/O of Late A. P. Nelson, 1/1084 Anthikatt House, Kunnumpuram Road, Fort Kochi-682001.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Rekha, Pragati Solutions/Home Nursing, Building No. 11/11D, Workshop stop. Muttar, Manjummel, Ernakulam, Kochi-683501.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant paid an advance of Rs. 9000/- to M/S Pragati Solutions/Home Nursing for a home nurse to care for the complainant's sick mother. The company issued a receipt for the payment. The complainant incurred an additional expense of Rs. 1000/- for transportation. However, the home nurse provided by the company was unfit for the job and wanted to leave without rendering any service. The complainant contacted Ms. Rekha, a representative of the company, who instructed the complainant to send the nurse back immediately. The complainant incurred a total financial loss of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 9000/- advance + Rs. 1000/- transportation). The complainant tried contacting Ms. Rekha multiple times, but she did not respond. The complainant sent a representative to collect the refund, incurring another expense of Rs. 1000/-. Ms. Rekha promised to credit the entire amount of Rs. 10,000/- into the complainant's bank account but failed to do so. The complainant was blocked from contacting Ms. Rekha. As a result, the complainant has not received any refund one month after the payment. This represents a deficiency in service by M/S Pragati Solutions/Home Nursing. The complainant also experienced inconvenience and mental agony, justifying a compensation of Rs. 5000/-. Additionally, the complainant has incurred Rs. 2000/- as the cost of litigation. The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. to Rs. 10,000, to pay Rs. 5,000 compensations for harassment and mental agony and the cost of litigation.
2). Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 1 document that was marked as Exhibit-A-1.
Exhibit A-1: The original of the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 06/02/2022.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced the original of the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 06/02/2022. (Exhibit A-1). Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for the deficiency in service of opposite party in connection with the service of home nurse.
We have also noticed that Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version. Hence the opposite party set ex-parte. The complainant had produced 3 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite party had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite party in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
The complainant had produced three documents before the commission (Exhibits-A-1). We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite party shall refund Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) being the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party
- The opposite party shall pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as compensation for deficiency in service and failure on the part of the opposite party in failing to provide the service.
- The opposite parties shall also pay the complainant Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of May, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1. The original of the receipt issued by the opposite party
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 148/2022
Order Date: 29/05/2023
