West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/68/2022

Mr. Subhas Ch. Sarkar, S/O- Late Kshitish Chandra Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanjay Karmakar, S/O- Ananda Karmakar, Prop. of Basanti Enterprise - Opp.Party(s)

Pintu Sarkar

30 Dec 2022

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party claiming an amount of Rs. 16000/- (Principal claim amount) and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony.

            The fact of the case, in nutshell, is that the Complainant purchased one Vent Air Water Purifier and a vent Air Kitchen Chimney on 16/10/20  for sum of Rs 16000/- and 25000/- from the opposite party  vide cash memo no.303 and 302 respectively for his personal use. The complainant gave a cheque vide no. 389398 of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank of Trimohini branch of Rs 40,000/- and Rs 1000/- cash to the opposite party on 16/10/2020 as the consideration money of the aforesaid water purifier and the kitchen chimney. The opposite party delivered the vent Air kitchen chimney on 16/10/2020 but he promised that he will deliver the water purifier within few days. That after few days the complainant asked the O.P. about the delivery of the water purifier, he assured that he will delivered it within two days.  But the opposite party did not deliver the water purifier. There after complainant went to the shop of the O.P. several times and requested the O.P. to deliver the same, Cash memo vide no.302 dated 16.10.2020 issued by the O.P. firstly the O.P. took delatory tractice by giving false assurance and lastly started misbehaving and abused the complainant with filthy languages. Lastly on the first part of May 2021, the O.P. refused to deliver the water purifier. Then the complainant launched a complaint on 26/06/2021 against the O.P.   30/06/2021 was fixed for mediation at the office the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices but O.P. did not appear for the mediation. Thus, the mediation failed. There is gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.P. Then finding no other alternatives the complainant is bound to file this case u/s 35 of the Consumer protection Act 2019 before this commission for proper redress.

    Notice was duly served upon the O.P. But the O.P. did not appear before this commission and the case proceeded ex- parte by vide order no.04 dated 24/08/22.             

     To prove his case, the complainant has filed the following documents -

         (i) Cash memo vide no.302 dated 16.10.2020 issued by the O.P.

         ii) Cash memo vide no.303 dated 16.10.2020 issued by the O.P.   

        (iii) Bank statement.

        (iv) Voter card.

 

                                      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 

         

          1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party?

         2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

         3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

 

 

                                     DECISION WITH REASONS

 

          We have heard ex-parte arguments by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant. We have also gone through the written examination – in – chief,  and written arguments filed by the complainant as well as the documents produced by the Complainant and the Opposite party.         

          At the time of argument, the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the Opposite Party is very much negligent in rendering service to his bona-fide customers. Due to the negligent act/deficiency in service of the Opposite Party, the Complainant met with an irreparable financial loss and mental pain and agony. The documents produced by the Complainant proved his case so, he is entitled to get the relief.    

          Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1  

 

            It appears from the record and the documents filed by the complainant that he had purchased a water purifier and a kitchen chimney from the O.P. of Rs 16000/- and Rs 25000/-respectively.   If this be the so, then it can be said that the Complainant is a consumer under Opposite Party as per section 2(7) of the C.P. Act, 2019.           

          Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

Point Nos. 2 & 3     

 

           Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.   

         On perusal of the cash memo  being no.302 and 303 dated 16.10.2020, it appears that the Complainant purchased a Vent Air Kitchen chimney and a water purifier from the Opposite Party at a price of Rs.25000/- and 16000/-. So, there is no doubt that the alleged Kitchen chimney and a water purifier was purchased by the Complainant. The complainant made the payment by a cheque vide no.389398 amounting to Rs 40,000 /- and cash of Rs 1000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party delivered the kitchen chimney on 16/10/2020. He did not deliver the water purifier on the same date but he promised to deliver it within a few days. Then, few days after the complainant again went to the shop of the opposite party and request him to deliver the water purifier but the O.P. did nothing. Thereafter the complainant made several correspondences with the O.P. but he did not pay any heed. Lastly on the first part of May 2021, the O.P. refused to deliver the water purifier. From the bank statement which have been submitted by the complainant shows that Rs.40,000/- had been debited from the A/C of the complainant in the name of one sanjay vide cheque No. 389398. So after receiving the consideration money of the water purifier, the O.P. did not deliver the same till now. As the O.P .has not contested the case after the valid service of the notice, so the story of the complainant cannot be disbelieved. From the above discussions we observed that O.P. did not provide satisfactory service to the complainant. In this way the O.P. willfully harrsed and cause mental agony to the complainant. The O.P. is deficient in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair business practice. Thus the complainant is entitled to get the relief(s) in this case.

 

              Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

Hence, it is

                                                  O R D E R E D

That the Consumer Case No. 68 of 2022 is allowed ex- parte against Opposite Party in part.

The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 16,000/- along with an interest @ 8% from 16.10.2020 till the full realization in the account of the Complainant being A/C No.5543010006620 of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Trimohini Branch, Dakshin Dinajpur  within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Party is further directed to credit a sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony to the said account of the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law. 

       Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.