DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 102 OF 2022
Date of Filing: 29.12.2022
Date of Order: 21.02.2023
Sri Sanjit Kumar Behera,
S/o Bharat Kumar Behera,
At-Paberi, Dalapada,
PO- Paberi, Dalapada,
District-Kandhamal, 706012. …………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
Sri Kartik Nayak,
S/o Sri H.Nayak,
Village: Birapratappur
PO: Birapratappur,
PS: Dologovindapur,
District-Puri …………………….. Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant: Self
For O.P. : Expartee
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.
Complainant Sanjit Kumar Behera has filed this case alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposition Party for not providing him with the agreed vehicle and praying therein for direction to the Opposition Party to refund the initial deposit of Rs. 37, 000/- along with cost and compensation for harassment.
- Brief Fact leading to the case is that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 37, 000/- to the Opposition Party for purchase of one Second Hand Car which he claimed to be his own. After payment of money, the Opposition Party did not refund the amount nor provided the vehicle and also did not receive his telephone calls for which he has filed this case before this Commission for a direction to the Opposition Party to refund a sum of Rs. 37,000/- along with cost and compensation.
- Notice was issued to the Opposition Party which was returned back by the Postal authorities with remarks ‘addressee left’. Hence, returned on 07.01.2023. After return of notice by the Postal Authorities, the notice was issued to the Opposition Party through his whatsapp number 7064208225 which was used by him previously. The whatsapp was duly delivered and the mark of notice by the receiver was found in the Mobile of the DMA of this Commission. So, the notice is held to be sufficient on the Opposition Party. As he did not appear or challenged the allegations made against him, this Commission proceeded to dispose of the matter on the basis of the document available on record.
- It is seen from the documents on record that the complainant has sent a sum of Rs. 450/- on 13.06.2022, Rs. 15,000/- on 15.06.2022, Rs. 3,000/- on 27.06.2022, Rs. 1500/- on 07.04.2022, Rs. 1500/- on 08.04.2022 and Rs. 800/- on 06.06.2022 and sum of Rs,. 15,000/- by way of Transfer to the account of the complainant to HDFC Bank, Bhubaneswar. The complainant has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit. The evidence adduced and produced by the complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted and unrebutted.
- As the Opposition Party did not raise the objection to the allegation raised against him in spite of notice served on him, it is deemed that he has admitted the allegation against him and the evidence led by the complainant clearly proves that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 37,000/- to him on different dates by way of transfer for which the Opposition Party is guilty of deficient in rendering service and for practicing unfair trade practice with the complainant and hence the Order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed expartee against the Opposition Party. The Opposition Party is made liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Opposition Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 37000/- (Thirty Seven Thousand Only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum and a sum of Rs. 1, 00000/- (One Lakh) towards compensation for loss and harassment and a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of order till it is complied.
Computerized & corrected by me.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 21st day of February 2023 in the presence of the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
