DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.714 of 2017
Date of institution: 08.09.2017 Date of decision : 05.10.2018
Ankit Omar son of Mithilesh Omar, resident of House No.641, Second Floor, Sector 17, Panchkula, Haryana.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. S.K. Associates and Security (Regd.), SCF 33, 2nd Floor, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab through its Manager/authorized person.
2. Mandeep Singh, authorised signatory/Manager/authorised person of S.K. Associates and Security (Regd.), SCF 33, 2nd Floor, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra Member.
Present: Shri Satyajeet Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Bahadur Singh, counsel for the OPs.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir President.
Order
Complainant, resident of Panchkula was looking out for full time domestic help for his house and that is why he visited OPs, who deals in business of providing manpower for cleaning and non cleaning services. On asking of OPs, complainant deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- as commission fee. Complainant was to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the manpower/recruited person as domestic help. Agreement dated 21.09.2016 in this respect was arrived at. As per terms of agreement, in case the recruited person leaves the company or scheduled work place within 11 months, then OPs will re-recruit upto maximum of 3 recruitments from the beginning of agreement/contract. OPs were to provide with recruitment/ manpower to complainant with immediate effect. However, no manpower was available at the time of agreement and as such after gap of 10 days, complainant enquired about same from the OPs, but he was called upon to wait for 7 more days. On submission of numerous requests and after waiting for long, complainant finally got first manpower/recruitment for having services of Smt. Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi. Those services were provided on 09.11.2016. The said manpower was not as per requirements of complainant because the said maid was not interested in work, but used to make excuses. Complainant and his wife had to keep a check as to whether the recruited maid has washed her hands before work in the kitchen or not. Even the above said recruited maid was not in the habit of taking daily bath. Said Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi worked with complainant till 08/09.01.2017. Complete salary was paid to Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi by complainant. Thereafter, complainant contacted OPs again to provide him re-recruited another maid and requests in this respect were submitted on regular intervals. However, OPs kept on claiming as if they are unable to appoint someone else. After wait of more than one month, complainant got second maid namely Smt. Charanjit @ Gagan on 18.02.2017, who worked with complainant until 12.06.2017. Complainant used to pay salary of Rs.8,000/- per month to this second recruited maid in time. This second maid after working for some time started demanding more money from complainant, despite the fact that her entitlement was for Rs.8,000/- per month as per agreement. Complainant claims to be not aware about the conversation between OPs and the second maid. Separate room to the maids was provided alongwith food by complainant continuously. Complainant again approached OPs for re-recruitment of another manpower, on which OPs disclosed that they are not having any recruitment/manpower at present. However, OPs assured the complainant that they will arrange for another manpower in short span of time. Despite repeated requests and visits, false assurance/promises were used to be received by complainant from OPs. As OPs failed to provide manpower/recruitment to the complainant as per agreement, and as such it is claimed that on account of deficient services provided by OPs, complainant suffered mental agony, torture and harassment and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of paid amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment of Rs.55,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-
2. In reply submitted by OPs it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint in present form not maintainable because complainant has suppressed material facts; complaint bad due to non joiner of necessary parties namely Smt. Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi and Smt. Charanjit @ Gagan against whom allegations of not providing proper services leveled by complainant and that complainant is not consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly complainant approached OPs for hiring help for domestic purposes and that OPs deals in business of providing manpower/recruitment for cleaning and non cleaning services. It is claimed that non refundable amount of Rs.25,000/- was received by OPs from complainant on account of commission and that complainant had to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the employee to be recruited for benefit of complainant at his house. Execution of agreement also is admitted. As per settlement between the parties, as and when suitable manpower/employee is found, then same to be provided to complainant because expectations of complainant and his wife were so high and impractical, on account of which time was bound to be consumed in providing employee to complainant. Behaviour of complainant and his family members was not congenial towards provided employee Smt. Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi because food was not used to be provided. Complainant and his family members always used to hurl filthy language towards the poor employees. OPs were required to provide three maids within a period of 11 months, but OPs provided 5 maids on different occasions in contravention of terms of the executed contract. Both the maids alleged to be working presently at other places to the satisfaction of receiver of services. One of the maids Smt. Charanjit Kaur is serving in house of Shri Jagmohandeep Singh, who is satisfied with services rendered by this maid. It is denied that complainant has given entire salary to maid Smt. Charanjit Kaur. In fact Rs.17,000/- requires to be paid to Smt. Charanjit Kaur for the services rendered by her for continuous period of four months, but complainant has not paid the balance salary of Rs.5,000/- to Smt. Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi even. On account of less payment of salary to Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, she left the job. Wife of complainant used to use filthy language towards the maids and nobody can meet her expectations. In fact wife of complainant is having strained relations with him due to which they used to quarrel with each other over trifles, on account of which the maids had to leave their house. Wife of complainant used to leave her house between 8.00 to 9.00 PM and she used to return at midnight at about 1.00 to 2.00 AM, while duly intoxicated. Sworn affidavits of two maids are annexed with the reply in this respect. It is claimed that services of maids were obtained with ulterior motive. Provided maids were not given proper food and accommodation. Rather OPs claim that they provided due services to complainant through their maids and as such by denying other averments of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint. Rather it is claimed that OPs are intending to initiate criminal action due to ill behavior shown by complainant alongwith his wife.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 of Shri Sanjiv Kumar Dhingra alongwith document Ex.C-1 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence two affidavits Ex.OP-1/1 and Ex.OP-1/2 of provided maids namely Smt. Charanjit @ Gagan and Smt. Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the submitted affidavits, it is made out that complainant entered into contract with OPs as per which Rs.25,000/- were paid by complainant to OPs in consideration of providing services of maids by OPs to complainant. It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that third maid was not provided to complainant despite assurance given in that respect through the agreement and as such OPs rendered deficient services. It is admitted by OPs in the written reply itself that as per terms of agreement, three maids were to be provided at different intervals to complainant and as such it is contended by counsel for complainant that as services of the first maid and the second maid even were provided after gap of one or 1-1/2 months each and as such there is deficiency in service on part of OPs, due to which complainant entitled for refund of paid amount of Rs.25,000/-. From the contents of complaint and the submitted affidavits, certainly it is made out that dispute does not remain regarding providing of two maids by OPs to complainant atleast.
6. Affidavits of Shri Sanjiv Kumar Dhingra Ex.CW-1/2 and of complainant Ankit Omar as Ex.CW-1/1 are produced in support of contents of complaint. After going through these affidavits and contents of written reply, certainly it is made out that Rs.8,000/- per month as salary was to be provided by complainant to the maids serving at his house. As per claim of OPs, complainant, his wife and their family members used to hurl filthy language towards the provided maids and that is why maids left the job. Affidavits Ex.OP-1/1 and Ex.OP-1/2 of two provided maids Smt. Charanjit @ Gagan and Smt. Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi are produced for establishing that behavior of complainant and his wife towards these maids remained ill, due to which each of them had to leave the job. Rather contents of affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Smt. Charanjit @ Gagan further establishes as if complainant has not paid Rs.17,000/- as balance salary of four months. Similar allegations regarding nonpayment of balance salary of Rs.5,000/- for the rendered services of two months by Smt. Sarabjit Kaur are leveled in her affidavit Ex.OP-1/2. Even writings by Smt. Charanjit @ Gaga and Smt. Sarabjit Kaur produced as Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 for establishing that deficient salary was paid to these maids. In letter Ex.OP-1 written by Charanjit @ Gagan to OPs’ concern, it has been specifically mentioned that wife of complainant used to leave the house and thereafter used to return back in late hours. Even as per contents of this letter Ex.OP-1, wife of complainant did not use to like this maid servant Charanjit @ Gagan to sleep until late hours, but she was used to be woke up in the early morning hours. Contents of this letter Ex.OP-1 further establishes as if maid servant was not allowed to have her meals in peace. Similar are the contents of letter Ex.OP-2 written by maid Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi to OPs. Rather in letter Ex.OP-2 it is mentioned that wife of complainant used to indulge in intoxication and she used to be paid Rs.6,000/- per month as salary in lieu of the settled salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. So from the letters of maids produced by OPs, it is established as if wife of complainant used to ill treat the maids and that is why they left the job. Besides above referred letters establishes that deficient salary was paid by complainant to both the maid servants, on account of which they had to leave the job. So this evidence establishes as if ill conduct of family members of complainant forced the two provided maids to leave the job of complainant. In view of this fault on part of complainant, deficiency in service on part of OPs cannot be inferred, more so when two maids were provided to complainant as per terms of agreement Ex.C-1.
7. After going through agreement Ex.C-1, it is made out that the said agreement was to remain in force for 11 months w.e.f. 21.09.2016. During this period of 11 months, three recruits were to be provided at earliest. No specific time limit is mentioned in this agreement by which recruits were to be provided for domestic help to complainant. In view of non providing of time limit within which the suitable recruits to be provided by OPs to complainant, it has to be held that if gap of one or 1-1/2 months in providing two earlier recruits took place, then deficiency in service on part of OPs on account of that cannot be found. In this agreement it is mentioned that Rs.25,000/- received by OPs as commission for providing man power and said amount is not refundable. Responsibility of OPs as service provider was to provide manpower as per agreement only. Emoluments of the provided maids were fixed as Rs.8,000/- per month as per Clause-5 of agreement Ex.C-1. That salary/wages was to be paid by complainant to the provided recruits i.e. maids, but less salary than that of same paid to maids Sarabjit Kaur @ Sabi and Charanjit @ Gagan, as referred above and as such fault lays with complainant in not sticking to terms and conditions of agreement Ex.C-1. Besides, ill behavior of wife of complainant forced the provided maids to leave the job, as discussed above, and as such deficiency in service on part of OPs cannot be found. Being so, complainant not entitled for refund of commission fee of Rs.25,000/- paid by him as per terms of agreement Ex.C-1.
8. It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that allegations leveled by maids are false because affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 of Shri Sanjiv Kumar Dhingra, owner of house in which complainant and his family resides, establishes that complainant or his wife were never seen or heard using any filthy language or fighting with anyone. In this affidavit it is further mentioned that allegations regarding bad habits or bad behavior or of intoxication of wife of complainant are false and as such it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that in fact reliance on the procured affidavits Ex.OP-1/1 or Ex.OP-1/2 or letters Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 cannot be placed. Whether or not allegations and counter allegations regarding ill behavior of complainant and his wife are correct, that is a controversial question requiring adjudication after appraisal of elaborate evidence to be adduced by parties. Only on cross examination of the witnesses, it can be found as to whether allegations of ill behavior are correct or not. It is well settled that as and when intricate questions of law and facts are involved requiring elaborate evidence, then the matter should be got decided from the civil court of competent jurisdiction because proceedings before Consumer Fora are summary in nature, where technicalities of law and procedure cannot be gone into. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in cases titled as P.N. Khanna Vs. Bank of India, II (2015) CPJ 54 (NC); Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC): Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Munnimaesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC); Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1998) CPJ 13 (NC); M/s. Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs. United Commercial Bank, III (1992) CPJ 50 (NC); Sagli Ram Vs. General Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II (1994) CPJ 444; Harbans & Co. Vs. State Bank of India, II (1994) CPJ 456; Jayantilal Keshavlal Chauhan Vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994(1) CPR 396 and Ranju Devi Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India 2015(4) CLT 131 (JHK). As per ratio of these cases, in case complicated questions of law and facts requiring elaborate evidence arises, then matter should be left to be decided from civil court having jurisdiction. Ratio of these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such it is fit and appropriate to dismiss this complaint with the observations that complainant will be at liberty to avail remedy from civil court regarding controversial question involved in the complaint qua ill behavior of complainant and his wife towards the provided maid servants by OPs to complainant.
9. No other point arises for consideration.
10. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed, but with the observations that the complainant will be at liberty to avail remedy from the civil court regarding controversial questions involved in the complaint. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
October 05, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
