DATE OF FILING : 06.12.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 09.01. 2017.
DATE OF ORDER : 17.08.2017.
Abdul Rezzak Mallick,
son fo late Arshed Mallcik,
proprietor of Kohinoor Bakery
of 42, Pilkana 3rd Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah.………… …….………………………….……..…… COMPLAINANT.
1. Mr. Madan Mohan Parua,
proprietor of M.R. Enterprise,
of 111, Kabiguru Sarani,
Kolkata ;700034.
2. Swapan Das,
c/o. M.R. Enterprise,
27R/1, J.K. Mitra Road, Balgachia,
Kolkata 700037. ……..…………………….………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ).
F I N A L O R D E R
1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Abdul Rezzak Mallick, against the o.p. no. 1, Mr. Madan Mohan Parua, proprietor of M.R. Enterprise, and another, praying for a direction upon the o.p. no. 1 to install the machineries at Kohinoor Bakery of 42 Pilkana 3rd Lane, P.S. Golabari, Howrah, and to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for unnecessary delay and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation costs.
2. The further case of the petitioner is that he being the proprietor of Kohinoor Bakery wanted to purchase some machines being ( 1 ) one bread oven capacity, ( 2 ) bread fitted with motor and burner – three numbers great trolley plus two numbers biscuit trolley and ( 3 ) 220 / 440 operating and the last one being 30 kg. spiral mixer on installment basis at a consideration of Rs. 5,30,000/- and out of the same he made payment of. 1,25,000/-.
3. The o.p. no. 2 on 10.10.2015 came to the petitioner and asked for money because they are ready to install the above machinery and again on 30,.3.2016 the petitioner sent legal notice to the o.p. no. 2 who replied to the same stating receipt of Rs. 1,25,000/- and demanding Rs. 4,05,000/-. The O.P. started harassing the petitioner and lastly denied the delivery of said machine stating his deposit of Rs. 1,25,000/- be forfeited as he could not pay Rs. 4,05,000/- and having no other alternative the petitioner filed this case.
4. The o.ps. did not appear and thus the case is heard ex parte against them.
5. The only point to be decided here is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit in evidence and also one document in the form of an order wherein the cost of the machines are shown and also at the back page of the same it is noticed that the o.p. no. 2 received Rs. 50,000/- on 13.9.2015 and another Rs. 50,000/- on 10.10.2015.It is noticed from the letter dated 26.4.2016 wherein the counsel of the o.p. conceded that they received Rs. 1,25,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 5,30,000/- being the purchase price of machine. The above oral and documentary evidenceswent unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioner who is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and thus the petitioner has succeeded in proving the case ex parte.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 366 of 2016 ( HDF 366 of 2016 ) be and the same is allowed ex parte with costs against the o.ps., who are directed to install the said machines in Kohinoor Bakery of 42, Pilkhana 3rd Lane, P.S. Golabari, within 30 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount as per agreement and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 20,000/- would go to the petitioner as compensation and the rest Rs. 30,000/- would be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this District .
The o.ps. are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
All the above payments will be made within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the petitioner, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
