Govt. of West Bengal
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION –NADIA
170, DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING
KRISHNAGAR, NADIA, PIN 741101, Telefax (03472) 257788
PRESENT : Shri dAMAN pROSAD BISWAS, PRESIDENT
: SMT MALLIKA SAMADDAR MEMBER
: SHRI NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY MEMBER
Case No. CC/80/2017
COMPLAINANT :1. Murad Ali Mondal,
S/O. Jainal Abedin Mondal,
Vill. Pitamberpur(Old),
P.O. Dompukur,
P.S. Chapra, Dist. Nadia,
V-E-R-S-U-S
OPPOSITE PARTIES / 1.Sarif Uddin Mondal,
S/o. Tujam Ali Mondal,
Vill. Baliadanga,
Sarif B.Ed College, Golam Rahaman Lane,
Boigachhipara,
P.O.+P.S. Santipur, Dist. Nadia
Pin-741404.
Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Sofikul Alam
For OP/OPs : Joydip Mitra/Makbul Rahaman
Date of filing of the case :30.06.2017
Date of Disposal of the case :31.08.2023
(2)
Final Order / Judgment dtd.31.08.2023
Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid opposite party u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for refund of Rs.8,00,000/-, compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, cost of the case and other reliefs.
He alleged that on 26.11.2015 OP took cash of Rs.4,00,000/- on condition to supply Rs.1,00,000/- bricks in favour of the complainant. OP also took Rs.4,00,000/- on condition to refund of Rs.1,00,000/- by 26.11.2016 and he will give bricks for Rs.3,00,000/-. One agreement was prepared to that effect but OP did not provide bricks in favour of the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed this case.
OP contests the case by filing a W/V. He denied the entire allegations.
He further contended that there was no valid transaction between the parties. The aforesaid agreement is purely manufactured document and same has no legal validity.
Trial
During trial complainant filed affidavit in chief. OP filed questionnaire . Complainant gave answer.
One Nur Islam Mondal filed affidavit in chief as PW-2. OP files questionnaire and he gave answer.
One Kasem Mondal filed affidavit in chief . OP filed questionnaire and he gave answer.
OP filed affidavit in chief. Complainant filed questionnaire and OP filed answer .
Documents
Complainant filed the following documents.
- Original agreement dated 16.11.2015...........(One sheet)
Brief Notes of Argument
Complainant filed BNA. OP filed BNA.
(3)
Decision with Reasons
Complainant alleged that he paid Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the OP and OP gave an assurance that he will provide one lakh pieces of bricks. He also alleged that he paid additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/- out of which OP was agreed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- within 25.11.2016 and he was also agreed to provide three lakh pieces of bricks in favour of the complainant. Complainant further stated that one agreement was prepared relating to the said transaction. Complainant produced the original copy of said document dated 16.11.2015 which contains the alleged signature of the OP and OP executed the said document in favour of the complainant. Said document does not contain the signature of the complainant. One Arif Mohammad Khan described himself as writer of the said document. One Jainal Abedin Mondal, Nur Islam Mondal and other two persons put their signature over the said document as witness.
OP denied the said document, he further stated that aforesaid document is manufactured document. But OP did not take any attempt for examination of the said document by hand writing expert.
So, it is clear before us that aforesaid document contains the signature of OP. Complainant by his affidavit in chief corroborated the said fact OP put some questionnaires and complainant gave answers.
On careful scrutiny of the affidavit in chief of the complainant, questionnaire of the OP and answer of the complainant we find no contradiction so that we can disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. OP in his affidavit in chief denied the existence of aforesaid document.
Nur Islam Mondal who put signature over the aforesaid agreement filed affidavit in chief before this Commission. He stated in his affidavit in chief that he put signature over the aforesaid agreement dated 16.11.2015. He also corroborated the contains of the aforesaid agreement. He clearly stated that both the parties are known to him and aforesaid agreement was written in his presence and after completion of writing it was read over and explained before him and he put signature over the said document. OP put questionnaires, he also gave answer but we do not find any contradiction, so that we can disbelieve the affidavit in chief of PW-2 of Nur Islam Mondal .
Another witness name Kasem Mondal also filed affidavit in chief, he also stated that aforesaid agreement was prepared in his presence. He also stated that both the parties are known to him. He also stated that after completion of writing of the aforesaid document, it was read over and explained and thereafter OP put signature over the said document. OP put questionnaires, he also gave answer but we do not find any contradiction, so that we can disbelieve the affidavit in chief of PW-3 Kasem Mondal.
(4)
OP filed affidavit in chief and he also denied the entire allegations.
We carefully gone through his affidavit in chief and find the he and complainant sometimes made different business jointly but from the year, 2015, he is doing his business and due to business rivalry, complainant filed this case. But this plea is totally absent in the W/V of OP. So, this plea is not accepted as it has not described in the W/V. No witness filed affidavit in chief in favour of the OP to corroborate his version.
From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that complainant is the consumer and OP is the service provider.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that complainant has able to prove that on 16.11.2015, one document was prepared and OP put signature over the said document. OP took Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant and agreed to provide one lakh piece of bricks in respect of amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and OP was also agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- by 25.11.2016 and he was also agreed to provide bricks for the remaining sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Accordingly, we find that complainant has established his grievance by sufficient documents and he is entitled to relief as per his prayer.
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) to be paid by OP in favour of the complainant.
OP is directed to supply bricks to the complainant for the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs) within 45 days from this day and he is also directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this day failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
(5)
OP is further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) within 45 days from this day failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ .........................................
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) (MALLIKA SAMADDAR)
