DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No.212/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
04.07.2019 11.07.2019 27.03.2023
Complainant/s:- | Smt. Annapurna Mitra, W/o. Subhas Mitra, 48/7, Manna Para Road, P.O. Noapara, P.S. Baranagar, Kolkata-700090, due to her physical illness and disability shall be represented by Seema Ghosh, D/o. Late Sushil Ghosh, 15, Sitala Mata Lane, P.O. Noapara, P.S.Baranagar, Kolkata-700090. = Vs |
Opposite Party/s: | Draftcon, H.B. Town Road, 3, Sodepur, Kolkata 700110, represented by 1) Anjali Bhowmick (being the proprietor) 2) Abhijit Bhowmick (being the Consultant Engineer ) and 3) Soumitra Sahoo(being the head of the Management ), having their branch address at 7, P.C. Banerjee Road, Dakhineswar, Kolkata-700076 and the house address of the said person Nos. 1 and 2 is East Station Road, Agarpara, (Near Surer Gali), Kol-109, P.S. Khardah. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 12of the Consumer Protection Act.
The brief facts of the case is as under the opposite parties submitted quotation for prepare plan and sanction the plan for an amount of Rs. 22,000/-for personal building of proprietor of Mitra Enterprise. The complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- by cheque and cash to the opposite parties for drawing a plan upon his land and sanction the plan from appropriate authority, O.Ps issued receipt of the same. But the O.Ps did not provide any service. O.P. appeared and filed Written Version and maintainability petition and also expunge petition. In Written Version O.P stated that it is a commercial deal. But the complainant submits that it was a deal for prepare building plan and sanctioning it for personal residential building of the complainant. The O.Ps issued money receipt being No. 511 dated 12.07.2004 and 537 dated 09/09/2014. The payment was made from the current A/c. of Mitra Enterprise complainant by cheque and cash who is the owner of Mitra Enterprise. But the O.Ps did not provide service. Therefore the complainant filed this case for refund the money of Rs. 20,000/-. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 filed W.V. it is admitted that the O.Ps received Rs. 20,000/-and denied other allegation.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No.212/2019
Issue framed for judgment
- Whether the case is maintainable or not?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs in this case or not?
Reason for Judgment
The complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- from her Firm’s current A/c. as a proprietor of that Firm for preparation a plan for G+2 storied building upon her land and sanction the plan from proper authority but the opposite parties did not provide any service. Hence deficiency of service and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps. The complainant paid Rs. 20,000/-out of Rs. 22, 472/- as settlement amount. The O.Ps did not complete the work hence O.P is liable to return back the money of Rs. 20,000/- which he received. It is admitted fact that O.P received Rs. 20,000/-. It is not commercial case but it is deficiency of the service in the part of O.Ps. This case is under the jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, this Commission has ample power to try this case.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the case is heard exparte as O.P. members are not present at the time of argument. The opposite parties are directed to return back the money Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant with 6% interest p.a from the date of receipt of the amount till recovery within two months from the date of order. Failing which the complainant has liberty to file execution case as per law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
