IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   

              KOLLAM

                                           C.C.No. 208/2021

                                                                                                PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

      SMT. S.SANDHYA   RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER

  SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                             ORDER DATED:   01-08-2023

BETWEEN

Sri.Harikrishnan Unnithan B., 44 years,

S/o Balakrishnan Unnithan N.,

Ushas, Manjakkala P.O.,Kunnikode(via),

Kollam 691508.                                                                                :           Complainant

(By Adv.Mariyamma Thomas)

AND

Sri.Manoj, Proprietor,

Success Job Consultancy,

M.C Road, Kulakkada 691521.

Now residing at Sri.Manoj,

Valiya Vilayil, Enathu P.O., Adoor,

Pathanamthitta 691526.                                                                 :      Opposite Party

Email: manojsmylapure@gmail.com

ORDER

S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the complainant in short is as follows: An amount of Rs.14,000/- was paid by the complainant to Mr. Manoj, the proprietor of the opposite party Consultancy in Kottarakkara, with the purpose of hiring someone for domestic work. The opposite party provided a person as per the agreement. However, upon finding that the person did not meet the required criteria, the individual was returned to the opposite institution on the same day. The Opposite party assured that they would arrange for a replacement within seven days. Unfortunately, despite the promise, the replacement was not provided even after two months. Consequently, the complainant requested a refund of the paid amount. However, even after six months, the money has not been returned. Repeated requests were made to the opponent for the money or the promised replacement, but there has been no satisfactory response. The situation has caused significant inconvenience and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
2. The opposite party remains exparte.
3. The complainant has filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced on the part of the complainant were marked as Exhibits P1 and P2.
4. Taking into consideration the pleadings in the complaint, the following issues are raised for consideration.
5. Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.
6. Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed for in the complaint.
7. Compensation and costs.
5. Points (i) to (iii): The complainant pleads that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the opposite party’s Success Job Consultancy to procure domestic services by paying an amount of Rs.14,000/-. Subsequently, one person was provided by the opposite party, but upon discovering the person's failure to meet the requisite criteria, the complainant promptly returned them to the opposite institution on the very same day. The opposite party, in recognition of their responsibility, assured the complainant that a suitable replacement would be arranged within seven days. Regrettably, this assurance was not upheld, and despite the promised timeframe, no replacement was provided even after the lapse of two months.
6. In response to the delay and apparent breach of agreement, the complainant sought a refund of the paid amount. However, even after the passage of six months, the opposite party has failed to return the funds. The complainant's repeated appeals for either the refund or the committed replacement have yielded no satisfactory response from the opposite party. The culmination of these events has imposed significant inconveniences and financial hardships upon the complainant.
7. In the absence of any denial or contestation from the opposite party, the allegations put forth by the complainant remain unopposed. Exhibit P1 evidences the receipt of Rs.14,000/- by the opposite party from the complainant on 11-01-2021. From the context outlined above, it can be reasonably inferred that the assertions made by the complainant against the opposite party carry substantial weight.
8. Notably, despite having received the formal notice from the Commission, the opposite party chose not to engage in the process of defence or rebuttal, which can be construed as an implicit admission of the allegations against them.
9. The opposite party, although not denying the allegations, has yet to rectify the situation in a manner befitting their contractual obligations. The opposite party Consultancy is unequivocally liable for their failure to deliver the promised replacement and subsequent refund within a reasonable timeframe. This failure constitutes a deficiency in service and a breach of their contractual obligations.
10. The plight of the complainant, due to the lack of availability of domestic work services should be duly acknowledged. Engaging the services of domestic workers is typically driven by personal constraints that hinder one's ability to perform these tasks independently. The complainant, in this instance, engaged the opposite party's services by making a monetary payment, indicating a contractual commitment rather than an act of charity or reliance on the opposite party's goodwill.
11. The opposite party, being in the business of providing domestic work services, failed to fulfil their obligation to arrange for a replacement as promised. This lapse on their part constitutes a clear deficiency in service and amounts to an unfair trade practice. The inability of the opposite party to deliver the expected service as per Exhibit P2 agreement not only breached their contractual duty but also disadvantaged the complainant, who was left without the assistance they had paid for, leading to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
12. Furthermore, the opposite party shall compensate the complainant for the inconveniences, financial losses, and additional expenses incurred due to the extended period of inadequate service. While monetary compensation cannot fully address the inconvenience and frustration experienced by the complainant, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for the sufferings caused due to the opposite party's failure to fulfil their commitment.
13. In light of the aforementioned considerations, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is held accountable for their deficient performance. As a consequence, the opposite party is directed to refund the initial payment of Rs.14,000/- along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance 45 days from the date of acceptance of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @9% from the date of order till the date of payment. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 1^st day of  August 2023.

Dated this the 1^st day of August 2023.

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI

MEMBER

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

  Forwarded/by Order                    

          Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1               :  Receipt of Rs.14,000/- by the opposite party from the complainant on 11.01.2021.

Ext.P2              :  Copy of Agreement Form

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil               

Sd/-

PRESIDENT