O R D E R<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this case for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The facts of this case is as follows: The complainant and his wife are retired teachers. On 26.5.2006, his wife has fallen down and the bone ofher left legs bone has fractured. Thereby she is not able to do any work and become bedridden. On 13.7.2006, they had seen an advertisement in Malayala Manorama Daily and found that an institution named Sree Home Nursing Service are providing home nurses. The complainant telephoned the Proprietor, named Mohandas, the opposite party in this case. Based on the contact, the opposite party sent one Geethakumary, a home nurse with a representative to complainant’s house on 14.7.06. On that day, the opposite party through that representative collected Rs.1,500/- as service charge, Rs.2,500/- as deposit, Rs.150/- as posting charge and Rs.200/- as Travelling expense. The total amount collected by the opposite party from the complainant is Rs.4,350/-. On 24.7.06, the home nurse Geethakumary has informed that she is not willing to continue the service there and try to return. The complainant contacted the opposite party and he instructed to send her to Kottayam. Accordingly, she was send to Kottayam on the next day itself. An amount of Rs.833/- was also paid to Geethakumary as her wages for 10 days. The complainant received the service of the home nurse only for 10 days. The complainant has contacted the opposite party several time for the return of the amount received by the opposite party but he has not turned up. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party does not appear and hence he was declared exparte. Though he was exparte, a version was seen filed stating that complaint is totally false and not maintainable. He denied that he has not received Rs.4,350/-, but he admits that he had received only Rs.1,000/-. He claims that he has not given any receipt. The signature in the receipt is also denied by the opposite party. He also stated that the receipt produced is a photocopy. <br /> <br /> 4. The opposite party also produced a photocopy of an affidavit of the said Geethakumary. In that affidavit, she states that she has not properly treated by complainant and his wife. Therefore, she gave up her job. Even though the complainant and his wife were retired teachers, their behaviour was not as teachers.<br /> <br /> 5. The opposite party also stated that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case. His contention is that money transaction with opposite party was at Kottayam and they have no branches in any other place other than Kottayam. Therefore, the opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 6. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:-<br /> (1)Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?<br /> (2)Whether the opposite party is entitled to get a relief as prayed for?<br /> (3)Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> 7. Points 1 to 3:- The evidence of this C.C. consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him have been marked as Exts.A1 to A4 series. Ext.A1 is the advertisement in Malayala Manorama Daily dated 13.7.2006 offering Home Nurse & Housemaid service by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the receipt for Rs.4,350/- issued by opposite party’s representative to complainant. Ext.A3 is the letter issued by home nurse named Geethakumari to complainant stating that she is leaving from his house on her own will. Ext.A4 is the copy of registered letter sent to opposite party by complainant. Ext.A4(a) is the postal receipt and Ext.A4(b) is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A4.<br /> <br /> 8. PW1 has not been cross examined, since the opposite party is exparte and has not turned up irrespective of notice for his appearance. Hence evidence closed and heard the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. On going through the evidence, it is seen that Ext.A2 was issued to complainant by opposite party’s representative on 14.9.2006 at the house of the complainant and the home nurse Geethakumari has served as home nurse for 10 days at the residence of the complainant which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Ext.A1 advertisement does not stipulate that the service of home nurses would be available to a particular place or district. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Therefore, the first point is answered against the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 10. On going through the evidence it is pertinent to note that the admissibility of Exts. A1, A3, A4, A4(a) and A4(b) has not been disputed. As per the version, the opposite party has made a demand to produce the original of Ext.A2. The complainant at the time of evidence produced the original of Ext.A2. The opposite party has also admitted that they have provided a home nurse to the complainant. It is evident that opposite party is running the home nurse service. It is not a free service. They are providing service by collecting charges. As per Ext.A2, opposite party has collected an amount of Rs.4,350/- under various heads. Moreover, the said home nurse, Geethakumari also accepted Rs.833/- at the time of leaving the complainant’s- residence as her wages as evidence from Ext.A3. Ext.A2 is the letter head of the opposite party. Zeal and signature of the opposite party is also seen in it. It was handed over to the complainant by the representative of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 11. The complainant expected a fair service of an home nurse, as his wife is bedridden. He and his wife were retired teachers. They were aged. The complainant was constrained to pay Rs.4,350/- to opposite party and an additional amount of Rs.833/- to the home nurse, Geethakumari. He got only 10 days service from the opposite party. He contacted the opposite party several times, but there was no response. Lastly he sent Ext.A3 letter and the same was accepted by the opposite party. Even then the opposite party has not taken any step to resolve the complainant’s grievances. Thus, the opposite party committed gross deficiency of service, which caused distress and mental agony to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 12. The opposite party has collected an amount of Rs.4,350/- under four heads as per Ext.A2. They are service charge for Rs.1,500/- and deposit of Rs.2,500/- and T.A. of Rs.200/- and posting charge of Rs.150/-. In addition to the above amount, the home nurse also collected an amount of Rs.833/- as wages irrespective of the deposit of Rs.2,500/-. Altogether the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.5,183/- in this regard and he had received the service of the home nurse only for ten days which according to him was not satisfactory also. There is no evidence to rebut the complainant’s evidence. Therefore, we find deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and he is liable for the refund of the amounts collected by him along with compensation and cost to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 13. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby the opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only), the amount collected as service charge and deposit, to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this complaint till this date and thereafter @ 6% interest per annum till the realisation of the whole amount. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation for mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service on his part and a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). The amounts so awarded will be paid within two months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum for the awarded amount will follow till whole payment.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 9th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> N. Premkumar,<br /> (Member)<br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) :<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) :<br /> Appendix<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : Zachariah Oommen<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Advertisement in Malayala Manorama Daily dated 13.7.2006 <br /> offering Home Nurse & Housemaid Service.<br /> A2 : Photocopy of receipt dated 14.7.06 for Rs.4,000/- issued by the <br /> opposite party to the complainant.<br /> A3 : Letter dated 25.7.06 sent by Geethakumary (Home Nurse) to <br /> the complainant.<br /> A4 : Photocopy of the letter dated 8.9.06 sent by the complainant to<br /> the opposite party.<br /> A4(a) : Postal receipt.<br /> A4(b) : Acknowledgement card.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent