Date of Filing : 07/11/2023
Date of Judgment: 03/12/2024
Sri Manish Deb, Hon’ble Member
The Fact of the case is that that the mother of the complainant became a boarder of Shantineer Old Age Care and Hospitality Limited in it’s Mukundopur -2 unit at 10 –A Satyajit Kanan , Mukundopur , Kolkata – 700099, the opposite party in a double sharing basis by virtue of an agreement dated 13.04.2022.
That during May, 2022 opposite party has given admission of a third person in the same room who has physically and mentally challenged.
That complainant sent a letter dated 26.05.2022 regarding this issue to the corporate office address of the opposite party through speed post. The letter was returned with the note that the address could not found.
That duringApril,2023 opposite party has increased the monthly charges of the Old Age Care and Hospitality Limited by tune of 10% without having any provision of the same in the initial agreement with boarders, above all there was no written communication regarding that matter with the complainant on the part of the opposite parties ,Only a copy of a notice that shows that the opposite party has increased the monthly charges which was sent by e- mail on 10.04.2023 to the complainant.
That subsequently, opposite party has started deducting the enhanced amount every month from the security deposit of the boarder without any written consent on the part of the complainant i.e boarders.
That around in the middle of June 2023, opposite party abruptly decided, without any prior intimation or written communication, to close down the it’s Mukundopur -2 unit by the end of month, and relocate the boarders to various other units of this organization. This unilateral decision lacked transparency and consideration for the well –being of the boarders and their families.
That opposite party failed to provide sufficient alternatives or arrangements and facilities to the mother of the complainant.
That opposite party verbally offered to the complainant for two alternative accommodations for the complainant’s mother, one at Tagore Park and the other at Tallygunge.The Complainant visited both the places and found that both places were inferior to that of Mukundapur -2 unit wherec omplainant had arranged to keep his mother.
That the sudden decision of closing of the unit , in a short notice, had create dimmense turmoil and agony among all the elderly boarders.Basic facilities for the boarders, such as water supply, helpingh and even the food supply to the boarders , were extremely irregularand ignored.
That in order to protect complainant’s 83 year old mother from that unbearable situation ,complainant decide to bring her back home on 02 -07-2023 informing the Branchin -chargeof the old age home whereas Prior to bring them other of the complainant, the complainant has reported this matter to the local police station on 29.06.2023.
That complainant have also submitted written letters on 30.06.2023 via speed post, along with subsequent reminders on 11.07.2023 requesting the opposite party to return back the refundable security deposit of Rs 1,00,000/- ( One lakh only) to complainant. The complainant have not received any communication from opposite party till date of filing of this complaint petition.
That complainant firmly believe that negligent behavior of opposite party has violated the rights of the elderly boarders of Old Age Care and Hospitality , the Complainant had his trust in opposite party to provide a safe and supportive environment for his mother , but unfortunately opposite party has failed to fulfill the responsibilities.
This has caused immense emotional, mental distress and suffering, significantly impacted in the physical and mental health of Complainant’s elderly mother.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this complain case before this commission.
The complainant prays before this commission for Direction upon the opposite party to refund the security deposit amounting to Rs 1,00,000/- ( One lakh only), as per the amount paid to OP upon the admission of his mother, and also Direction to the opposite party to provide compensation of Rs 4,00,000/- ( Rupees four lakh only) to compensate for the extreme agony and mental trauma endured by 83 year old mother of the complainant as well as the financial and emotional distress experienced by his family and to pay the cost of litigation related to this matter .
POINTS FOR DECISION are
- Whether the complainant fall in the category of the “Consumer” under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Whether the complainant is within limitation under C.P. Act, 2019.
- Whether the commission has the jurisdiction to decide the present complainant.
- Is the case is maintainable or not.
- Is the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
OBSERVATION
The complainant fall in the category of the “consumer” under C.P. Act, 2019.
The complaint is filled within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
The main question for consideration before us is whether the opposite parties is deficient by not providing service toward the boarder (i.e mother of the complainant ) of the old age home as a whole created immense turmoil and agony among all the elderly boarders and denied the basic facilities for the boarders of the old age home.
Our view is that the opposite parties are liable in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged as the complainant.
And we considered that entitlement of getting relief sought by the complainant is also affirmative.
The complainant has submitted his evidence, brief note of argument in the case.
The complainant has adduced evidence together with copy of documents which includes money receipt.
The opposite party being reputed organization in service sector, it is always expected that they should come to a decision with application of mind and taking into consideration of the service toward the boarder of the old age home as a whole. The sudden decision of closing of the unit in a short notice might created immense turmoil and agony among all the elderly boarders and the basic facilities for the boarders of the old age home were irregular. That way opposite party’s deficiency in service stands established.
That the opposite party fails to prove the claim and contentions of the complainant are not proper and correct as the opposite party has not entered appearance in the case for defend the case . Accordingly complainant’s claim for return of the refundable security deposit of Rs 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One lakh only) to complainant is found to be justified, thus survives.
Hence the complainant is found eligible for refund of Rs 1,00,000/- ( One lakh only) along with the interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the case and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Hence it is
ORDERED
CC No.505/2023 is allowed ex parte against OP.
That the opposite party shall refund Rs 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant along with the interest @12% p.a. payable from the period for the date of submission of claims by the complainant to the OP till the date of actual payment. The opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and other damage to the complainant.
The opposite party also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
All the above payments shall be made by the opposite party to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to take necessary step in accordance with law.
Dictated and corrected by
Member
