DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of May 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 01/01/2015
: Sri.V.P.Ananatha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.5/2015)
Suresh Babu.S
Suresh Mandir,
Perumudiyoor,
Pattambi, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Vinod K Kayanat)
Vs
The Proprietor
Anugraha Home Nursing
Sreevalsam Building
Opp.K.S.E.B. (Petrol Pump)
Mele Pattambi, Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Adv.V.K.Krishnakumar)
O R D E R
By Shri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member.
Brief facts of the case.
The complainant resides in the above address. The complainant’s mother was bedridden due to old age disease and to look after her affairs, the complainant approached the opposite party and sought the assistance of a home nurse. The application for the same was signed on 13/5/2014 and remitted an amount of Rs.11,500/- vide Ext.A1 and availed service of a home nurse for one month. Subsequently on 9/6/2014, 9/7/2014 and 19/8/2014 the complainant remitted amounts for service of home nurse. On 19/8/2014 the complainant remitted Rs.11,000/- for service of the home nurse for 28 days vide Ext.A2 but due to the reasons known to the opposite party they recalled the home nurse on 10/9/2014 and was not ready to render service to the complainant who contacted the opposite party’s office a number of times and requested to continue the service as agreed to by them. But the opposite party stating lame excuses for the absence of their service, promised to depute home nurse immediately. But till date the opposite party has not deputed any home nurse to look after the aged mother of the complainant. When the payment was received by opposite party they refused to render service to the complainant. The conduct of the opposite party, amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, as a result of which the complainant pleads that he has suffered big mental agony and loss which should be compensated for by the opposite party.
On 19/8/2014, the opposite party received Rs.11,500/- vide Ext.A2 on the condition that they would provide home nursing service and received Rs.1,000/ by way of service charge. The sudden withdrawal of home nursing service without any intimation to the complainant caused great difficulty to the complainant. Hence according to the complainant the opposite party is liable to return the amount remitted and to pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- compensation. On 30/9/2014 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party stating the above facts and demanded to repay the remitted amount plus Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and stress caused to the complainant because of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. On receipt of the lawyers notice the opposite party sent a reply to the complainant, wrongly finding fault with the complainant. According to the complainant all the averments in the reply notice sent by opposite party were false and caused to him greater harm and humiliation. The complainant along with his family are living in a society with good reputation. The complainant pleads that the contentions of the opposite party in their reply notice is only to lessen their reputation. The complainant prays that the opposite party be made personally liable to pay Rs.1,500/- being service charge of home nurse paid by the complainant plus Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5000/- being costs to the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party to file their version. The opposite party in their version contended the following:
The complainant’s allegation in his complaint that the opposite party has not mentioned in his complaint that Rs.11,000/- was remitted to opposite party on 19/8/2014 for home nursing service for 28 days.
According to the opposite party the complainant remitted Rs.1,500/- only and cheated their establishment. As per rules of the establishment Rs.2000/- is collected for three months. After three months one has to renew the application by paying Rs.11,500/-. Then only the home nurse will be supplied to the needy. Therefore according to opposite party the complainant has not complied all the formalities and rules of the establishment. Further the opposite party denied recalling of any home nurse from her duty. The complainant did not furnish any letter to the establishment regarding return of servants. Hence opposite party contended that complainant committed breach of contract, he did not comply with the rules of the establishment of the opposite party as mentioned in the agreement as per Ext.B2. According to the opposite party the complainant did not visit their office several times for the purpose of getting home nurse, the opposite party did not act illegally and no case is pending against them for misleading the customers either in any police station or in any courts. Further they contend that they run the institution with due care and claims that it is a social service organization not coming within the purview of “consumer services”.The complainant’s allegation in his complaint that opposite party has not supplied the home nurse and has collected excess service charge and doing mal practices are denied as per counter filed by opposite party. According to the opposite party aberrations of the complainant are baseless and untrustworthy and should be dismissed with costs. According to opposite party the mother of the complainant was bedridden because of old age disease and to look after her affairs the complainant approached the opposite party and applied for the assistance of a home nurse. The application for home nursing service was signed on 13/5/2014 by the complainant vide Ext.B1 admitting 26 rules of establishment. Insisting on strict compliance of the rules the opposite party accepted cash Rs.11,500/- for 28 days service. The application form clearly states 28 days service but in the complaint it is one month which is absolutely wrong, contends by opposite party. Afterwards on 9/6/2014, 9/7/2014 and 19/8/2014 the complainant remitted amounts towards the salary of the home nurse. Rs.9500/- was remitted towards the salary of the servant and Rs.2000/- for the establishment to protect home nurses and to provide for food, clothing, shelter and medicines to the servants. The complainant did not mention the amount remitted on 9/6/2014, 9/7/2014, 19/8/2014 in his complaint. Registration in the Panchayath or any other local authority or as per the Shop Act is not required for running this organization. According to the opposite party the service rendered by them is a humanitarian service and not a paid service. The service is not subject to service tax opposite party provides this service for the last 20 years for the well being of the ladies. This organization provides services to old age people and attend delivery cases for the needy, poor and helpless people. Hence the opposite party contends that they have not committed any deficiency of service nor done any unfair trade practice to the complainant.
Regarding service charge of Rs.4,500/- collected by them the opposite party’s contention is that it is false. They refunded excess amount and closed the agreement which was endorsed by the complainant vide Ext.B1. Hence the complaint should be dismissed with compensation to the opposite party. In the reply to notice vide Ext.B5 sent by the lawyer of the complainant the opposite party contends that all the facts and deals are mentioned, the complainant suppressed the amount received by him while closing the account. Hence according to opposite party complaint itself is baseless and the complainant cannot claim Rs.1500/- towards service charge, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- by way of litigation expenses. The complainant changed many workers one by one. On 22/9/2014 he collected Rs.2034/-vide Ext.B1 from the opposite party and never approached the opposite party for renewal of service. This fact was also suppressed by the complainant according to opposite party. Moreover, because of complainant’s misdeeds huge loss occurred to the opposite party. Rs.30,000/- loss occurred towards wages and expenses. Further the opposite party had to incur Rs.13400/- as wages and Rs.30,000/- be paid to them as compensation.
Hence the opposite party prayer to the Forum to dismiss the compliant with costs.
From the part of the complainant documentary evidence comprised chief affidavit, Ext.A1 to A7 which were marked. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. From the side of opposite party chief examination affidavit was filed alongwith documents marked as Ext.B1 to B5. Witness were present and examined as DW1 & DW2.
The following issues arise for consideration are
1.Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1& 2
Both parties were heard and on perusal of the documents the following are clear to the Forum.
The complainant is residing in Suresh Mandir, Perumudiyur, Pattambi. Since the complainant’s mother was bedridden due to the old age disease, he sought the services of the opposite party for getting the assistance of a home nurse to look after the affairs of his old mother. The application for getting home nursing service was filled up and signed on 13/5/2014 vide Ext.A3 which mentioned the terms and conditions of home nursing service provided by the opposite party. On that date Rs.11,500/- was remitted to opposite party for availing the service of their home nursing for 28 days. Subsequetnly on 9/6/14, 9/7/14 and 19/8/14 the complainant remitted amounts for service of home nurse vide Ext.A2, A4 and A5. The amounts remitted were Rs.9,500/- on 9/6/2014 for 28 days service, Rs.9,500/- on 9/7/2014 for 28 days service and Rs.11,000/- on 19/8/2014 for 28 days service. But due to reasons without sufficient proof the opposite party recalled the homenurse on 10/9/2014 and was not prepared to render service to the complainant in future. Inspite of the complainant approaching opposite party several times with a request to provide a home nursing service to him the opposite party did not oblige. The opposite party did not depute any home nurse for the care of the old aged mother of the complainant. Although the complainant had paid necessary amount to the opposite party for getting the home nursing service, it is observed that opposite party did not provide the service needed for the care of the old aged mother of the complainant. Hence we find that there has arisen deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party due to which mental agony has been caused to the complainant which should be compensated for by the opposite party. Further it is found that sudden withdrawal of home nurse without giving complainant any intimation in this regard has caused him difficulties which should be compensated for by the opposite party. Moreover the averments made by the opposite party against the complainant in the reply to lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant vide Ext.B5 on 30/09/2014 are not proper on the part of the opposite party because it may cause harm and humiliation to the complainant.
Above all, the complaints raised by the home nurses against the complainant about his ill treatment as mentioned in the chief examination affidavit filed by the opposite party cannot be fully accepted without adequate proof. We observe that at least some of them should have narrated their difficulties of working as home nurse in the house of the complainant as witnesses before the Forum. As per Ext.B1 the complainant has given a receipt for Rs.2,034/- received by him. This is also confirmed by deposition of witness DW2.
Hence we partly allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund Rs.1500/-(Rupees One thousand five hundred only) collected from the complainant by way of service charge and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by opposite party.
Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of May 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Cash bill for Rs.11500/- issued by the opposite party to the
complainant dated 13/5/14
Ext.A2 - Cash bill for Rs.11000/- issued by the opposite party to the
complainant dtd.19/8/2014
Ext.A3 – Application for home nursing dated 13/5/14
Ext.A4 - Cash bill for Rs.9500/- issued by the opposite party to the
complainant dated 9/6/14
Ext.A5 - Cash bill for Rs.9500/- issued by the opposite party to the
complainant dated 9/7/14
Ext.A6 series - Copy of lawyer notice sent to the opposite party through
counsel of the complainant with postal receipt and Ack.card
dated 30/9/14
Ext.A7 - Reply notice sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated
14/10/14
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 – Suresh Babu.S
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
DW1 – Suresh Babu.K.V.
DW2 – Aboobaker
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 – Application for Nursing Service alongwith photocopy of extract of
account of refund of Rs.2034/-
Ext.B2 – Agreement signed by complainant for home nursing service
Ext.B3 series – Cash bill dated 13/5/14, 9/6/14, 9/7/14 & 19/8/14
Ext.B4 – Lawyer notice sent to opposite party dated 30/9/2014
Ext.B5 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 14/10/2014
Cost
Nil
