Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12/04/2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.114/2009, Anurag Nursing Home V/s. Sigma Manpower Services, by District Consumer Disputed Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (in short ‘Forum below’).

(2)          It is the grievance of Appellant/Original Complainant that they had taken brochure of Opposite Party - Sigma Manpower Services, which is a manpower consultant agency in Mumbai and it further remains undisputed that as a member, the Complainant availed benefits of the data and the services agreed to be provided by Opposite Party/Respondent, namely:

    “

a)   We scrutinize the CVs, shortlist the candidates, conduct preliminary interview and inform the candidates to attend final interview at your office.

b)   Advertisement of your vacancy in “Seaker Employment Plus” (Widely circulation job and career English weekly newspaper).

c)   On request we can send CVs of the candidates by e-mail/CD/by courier.”

(3)          It is the grievance of the Complainant that they had made request to the Opposite Party Respondent to make available to them services of employees, but, the Opposite Party failed to supply any employee and thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, present complaint is filed.

(4)          Opposite Party denied the allegations and averments made by the Complainant in toto.  Forum below also did not find any substance in the grievance made by the Complainant about the alleged deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party and dismissed the consumer complaint.  Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by original Complainant.

(5)          We heard both sides.  Perused the material on record. 

(6)          The important document on record and which is undisputed, is the membership agreement dated 25.03.2008.  We have also referred to the services which the Opposite Party point outs to provide, viz. their obligations under the contract when the Complainant takes its membership.  We also referred to the terms and conditions mentioned in the above referred membership agreement and which reads as under:

“Terms and conditions:

1.   Membership fee which is valid for one year is Rs.3483/- (Rupees Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Three only).

2.   As long as your membership is valid, you will get the support of our existing data to select right candidates for your office.

3.   There will not be service charge after selection of candidates through us.”

(6)          It is the grievance of the Opposite Party that said membership was offered only for one year and the present grievance vis-à-vis consumer complaint is filed after said period was over. During the period of membership they did and fulfil their part of obligations.  They also referred to one document dated nil, i.e. copy of register maintained and which show that one Sandhya, one Shweta and one Shashikala, were the candidates sent to Complainant.  It is rightly pointed out by the Opposite Party that they can make available their database to the members to select the candidate and they can also shortlist the suitable candidate, if found and send to the member.  It is seen that Opposite Party even sent employees to the Complainant.  Therefore, we find that the consumer complaint itself is misconceived.  We find no reason to take different view than what has been taken by the Forum below dismissing the consumer complaint.  Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal stands dismissed.

    (ii)       No order as to costs.