A city consumer disputes redressal commission has ordered a managed home rental service portal based in Bengaluru to pay compensation and refund ‘hidden charges’ to a South Mumbai resident who had used its services in the southern city.
The complainant Nikhil Goregaonkar had shifted to Bangalore for a job in January last year. Nestaway Technologies, which acted as a middleman agency, had provided him the home of a doctor on rent for Rs. 17,900 per month with electronic appliances like fridge, geyser and washing machine. He was assured that it will be conducting repair of any electronic appliances during his stay.
Goregaonkar, in his complaint filed in November last year before the commission, stated that the company did not respond when he experienced issues with the washing machine in the flat, compelling him to spend Rs. 2,699 from his pocket. While the company charged home maintenance of Rs. 199 per month, he complained that no service was provided. Frustrated, when the lock-in period of six months was over, he decided to leave the flat and gave 14-days prior notice. He complained that despite the notice, Rs. 2,435 was charged as ‘utility charges bills’ and ‘move-out fine’. The amount was deducted from his deposit of Rs. 35,000. Goregaonkar stated that the company had charged many tenants similarly and would not give explanation for the same. The order was passed ex-parte against the company as it did not respond to the commission's notice.
Commission’s President Sneha S. Mhatre and member DS Paradkar ordered the company to return the home maintenance charges collected over the months as well as the amount the customer had to spend on the washing machine repair. It also asked the firm to refund the amount it deducted from the security deposit. The commission also ordered it to pay him Rs. 5,000 for mental agony as it reasoned, due to its deficient service he was compelled to leave the accommodation as soon as the lock-in period was over and had to initiate the present complaint before the commission.
It considered while declaring the firm deficient in service and engaging in unfair trade practice as per the Consumer Protection Act, that he had sent 25 emails to it due to issues faced in the room as well as sent repeated requests on their app. It said that despite this, it did not help him in any way and instead imposed hidden charges, for which it did not give any explanation when sought for by the complainant through email.
