Des Raj Bansal vs FREEDOM DOMESTIC SERVICES PVT. LTD.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order dated 26.5.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 106 of 2004, we find that this appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed summarily. The reasons for our finding, as aforesaid, are as under:

THE District Forum while dealing with the complaint of the complainant accepted the version of the complainant to the extent that the deficiency in service was held to be proved on the part of the respondent. Consequently, the District Forum directed the respondent to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 1,000/- deposited vide Payee Cheque No. 019942 dated 17.1.2004 under the scheme floated by the respondent for providing fee service of plumber, electrician, carpenter, free home delivery, free medical help line and car help line along with free service of Gardener Weekly, with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit i.e., 17.1.2004 till its payment. The scheme floated by the respondent required the appellant/complainant to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,600/- for one year membership. As mentioned earlier, the complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- on 17.1.2004 and the remaining amount of Rs. 600/- was to be paid after four months. After the encashment of the cheque, the respondent issued membership No. 771 to the complainant, which was valid up to 16.1.2005. It is alleged that the complainant requisitioned the services of carpenter on 20.1.2004. The respondent promised to depute one carpenter on 21.1.2004. The carpenter visited the residence of the complainant but without tools and he could not do the job in the absence of the proper tools i.e., drill machine. The carpenter promised to come on the next date but he did not appear. The respondent was informed about the carpenter not visiting the residence when another carpenter was promised to be sent on 27.1.2004. The second carpenter also did not turn up. It is alleged that services of gardener were to be provided by the respondent every once in a week but gardener never responded and similarly the services of electrician and plumber were requisitioned but they also did not report for doing the required job. The services of car driver were also requisitioned for taking the car to Rohtak on 21.4.2004. The driver was promised to be sent on the said date at 5.00 a.m. but the driver did not report on the duty. This led the complainant to issue a notice to the respondent on 4.2.2004 asking for the refund of the money and alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

The complaint was filed seeking refund of Rs. 1,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. The notice of complaint was sent to the respondent who did not appear to contest the case. The complaint was proceeded ex parte. The complainant led evidence in the shape of documents - (Annexure C-1) a copy circular containing the description of services to be provided by the respondent, (Annexure C-2) a copy of receipt for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- deposited, (Annexure C-3) a copy of letter regarding the allotment of membership number w.e.f. 17.1.2004 and (Annexure C-4) a copy of letter calling upon the respondent to refund the money.

AS mentioned above, the District Forum allowed the complaint to the extent that it ordered the refund of Rs. 1,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit i.e., 17.1.2004 till its payment. The District Forum, however, declined to grant the relief regarding the payment of Rs. 2,200/- on account of taxi charges, Rs. 550/- on account of payment made to the plumber, electrician and carpenter as no cogent evidence was placed on record by the complainant. A sum of Rs. 500/- was, however, awarded as costs of the complaint. The District Forum after referring to the evidence adduced by the complainant in the shape of documentary evidence as well as in the shape of his affidavit ordered the refund of the said amount. So far as the claim of the complainant with regard to the taxi charges and payments made to the plumber, electrician and carpenter were concerned, the same were declined on the ground of lack of cogent evidence. So far as the taxi charges are concerned, the scheme floated by the respondent was not to provide free service of car but paid services for providing driver i.e., to say that if driver had been deputed, the complainant was required to negotiate the payment of the dues of the driver for taking the car to Rohtak and back. The plumber and electrician did not visit the premises of the complainant. The carpenter who visited the premises of the complainant did not do any job and another carpenter deputed never visited the premises of the complainant. These acts were held to be the acts of deficiency in service, which entitle the complainant to claim the relief regarding the refund of the amount.

SO far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as regards the District Forum in not awarding compensation on account of the fee of the Counsel is concerned, the same is liable to be rejected on the sole ground that no certificate of the Counsel showing the fees given to Counsel has been appended with the complaint case nor any such disclosure has been made in the complaint case. In the absence of any certificate from the Counsel, the costs of Rs. 500/-, which the District Forum has awarded, is just and adequate. Reference may be made to the law settled by the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission] in the case of Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and Another v. P.R. Krishnan and Another, I (1995) CPJ 43 (NC), wherein the Hon''ble National Commission has held that the conference of a double benefit by awarding both interest as well as lump sum compensation is not justified in law. Thus, the award of interest @ 7% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,000/-, which was ordered to be refunded by the District Forum from the date of deposit i.e., 17.1.2004 till its payment, is justified and the District Forum was right in not awarding compensation in lumpsum, in view of the law settled by the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (supra). We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.