IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAMINDEX DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. Present: Sri.K. Vijayakumaran, President. Adv. Ravi Susha, Member. R. Vijayakumar, Member. C.C.NO.427/2005 KARTHIKA.L.R PRIYA SADANAM, PATTATHANAM P.O, KOLLAM. REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A.PRIJI, PRIYA SADANAM, PATTATHANAM P.O, KOLLAM. [I.STEVENSON, ADV., KOLLAM] .. COMPLAINANT V/S SECRETARY, INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, RED CROSS OFFICE, KOCHUPLAMMOODU, KOLLAM-691001. [N.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, ADV., KOLLAM] .. OPPOSITE PARTY O R DE R R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER The complaint is filed for return of advance deposit, compensation Rs.1/- and cost. The avernments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows. On 13-6-05 the complainant went to the opp.party’s office and took registration remitting Rs.200/- as advance for getting service of a home nurse to look after her father-in-law who was ailing from cancer. The complainant had stated her dire need. The opp.party under took to provide the service within two-days. But he has not taken any steps for providing the service or even to show the courtesy to inform availability of the nurse. The complainant and her husband contacted several times enquired directly and over telephone. On 8-7-05 her father-in-law died. The matter was informed to the opp.parties. The opp.party responded that they were not in a position to return the deposit amount as 30 days elapsed from the date of registration. The complainant proposed to the opp.party that the service may be availed for her mother-in-law who had also undergone a surgery at RCC, Thiruvananthapuram. But the opp.party did not cared to respond positively or to reply properly. The complainant and her family suffered a lot of mental agony due to the willful negligence and deficiency in service of opp.party. On 23-7-05 the complainant issued a Lawyer Notice through which she had again put forward the proposal of getting service for looking after her mother-in-law or otherwise with a compensation of Rs.500/- be paid to the complainant along with the Advance deposit Rs.200/-. Opp.party replied that they are not liable to return the deposited amount. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contenting interalia that the complaint is not maintainable in the forum. He has stated in the version that as per rules and regulations governing the scheme of providing home nurses, the Registration fee Rs.200/- remitted by the complainant is not refundable. It will be used for other welfare schemes. Opp.party did not direct the complainant to deposit the amount. Almost all persons who approach for service of Home nurse were in dire need. Hence the opp.party is providing service on seniority basis. The allegation of the complainant that after receipt of money, the opp.party did not take any steps for providing service or did not show the courtesy to inform the availability of Nurses is false. The application for service of home nurses be made atleast two weeks before the date of requirement. It is not true that the complainant approached the opp.party on 17-6-05 with a request to provide the service of Home Nurse. On 18-7-05 the home nurse was available for service and it was informed to the complainant. But she said that alternate arrangements were made. She would contact the opp.party if necessary. The petitioner did not contact till 5pm on that day the service of that home nurse was allowed to the next person. Because of the death of the father-in-law of the complainant the
Registration cancelled automatically and for availing service for the mother-in-law, the complainant would have to make another registration. There is no deficiency in service on the party of opp.party. The opp.party is not a profit making organization. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Exts.P1 to P5 marked. The opp.party was examined as DW1. Ext.D1 marked. The points that would arise for consideration are 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. 2. Compensation and cost. Point I Admitted by both parties that the complainant contacted the opp.party for availing service of a Home Nurse. She has stated that an Advance was deposited by her. The opp.parties contention is that the remittance of Rs.200/- is the Registration fee and it is not repayable as per the rules and regulations of the scheme. Ext.P1 is the receipt for the said remittance. While examination PW1 has stated that “Receipt H Reg. fee tr\r\fjrkA Advance tr\rfjrkA Tmujhln\ Lf\ SgDe\semkf\fjuf\”. The column to write amount is not straight to the column of items. The 1st line for items is Reg. fee and the amount I noted is Rs.200/-. From this we could understand that the amount remitted is Registration fee. The main contention of the complainant is that eventhough she was in dire need for Home Nurse’s Service the opp.party could not grant service of the home nurse even in the seniority of general category and till the date of death of the complainant’s father-in-law. The opp.party has stated in their version that “it is a fact that almost all those who approach the opp.party for home nurses are in dire need of service”. If it is so why the opp.parties included in their condition that “vjh YeSfUd cl<vgUb\bxjH gwjc\MG svu\ukr\r pjicA fr\sr S<lA rq\cjsr h.j]kilrkA Tmukn\m\”. Ext.D1 itself shows that Home Nurse may be available on the date of Registration itself in some special circumstances. Those circumstances were not described in Ext.D1. But even a common man can understand that it may be in dire needs. The learned counsel for opp.party argued that the Article No.1, page No.1 of Ext.D1 it is mentioned that the person who need service of Home Nurse must have to Register before opp.party at least two weeks before they need the service means that service of Home Nurse will be provided only after a minimum of two weeks of Registration. Further the providing of service of Home Nurse will be depending upon the availability of Home Nurses. We feel that the argument of opp.party’s counsel is not acceptable regarding the interim time of two weeks intended for arranging the service of Home Nurse. By including this condition the opp.party is taking the liability of providing Home Nurses after two weeks from the date of Registration. The opp.party had stated in Ext.D1 that in certain circumstances, the service will be provided on the date of registration itself. The complainant’s case also, though will come under the purview of that special circumstances, the complainant was not provided with the service even after a period of 26 days, till date of death of the complainant’s Father-in-law. The case of the opp.party is that new Registration is needed for providing service to the complainant’s Mother-in-law. If it is true the opp.party can proceed only with the new registration as argued by the learned counsel. Only after two weeks of Registration the service can be provided and it may be based on the availability. If his above versions is believed we fail to understand as to how they had issued an intimation on 18-7-05 as alleged without a new registration and without elapsing 2 weeks time. In the absence of believable evidence this case of the opp.party seen quite improbable. As per Ext.D1 if the party fails to avail the service after getting intimation the Registration will be cancelled automatically. The Reg. Fee will not be refunded. Here in this case the opp.party is claiming that he has informed the availability on 18-7-05 and the complainant refused to avail service. As pointed out earlier the case put forward by the opp.party that he has informed on 18-7-05 is not true. Point II The complainant’s prayer in the compliant is for getting Re.1/- as compensation. But he has raised his claim to Rs.5000/- in the proof Affidavit without any support of pleadings. Such a prayer cannot be allowed. We have perused all documents in detail. We are of the view that there is deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of opp.party. The points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.party to return Rs.200/-, to pay compensation Re.1/- and cost Rs.1,500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within in month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 31st day of October, 2009. List of the witnesses for the complainant PW.1- P.A.Priji List of the documents for the complainant Ext.P1- Receipt No.6783 Ext.P2-Adv: Notice (copy) Ext.P3- Reply Notice Ext.P4-Acknowledgment card Ext.P5- Power of Attorney List of the witnesses for the opp.party DW.1-V.N.Vijayan List of documents for the opp.party Ext.D1- Home Nurse Service Scheme Regulation | 
