DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI.

C.C. NO. 89/2022

Date of Filing: 17.12.2022

Date of Order:  31.07.2023

Smt. Anusuya Pradhan,

W/O Niranjan Pradhan,

At - Sarangagada, Gindapanka

PO - Bondaguda

District - Kandhamal                          ………………….    Complainant.

Versus.

1. Sri Amira Nayak

Maa Prativa Enterprises

At/PO-Munda Sahi, Balliguda

District – Kandhamal

2. Ratnamani Nayak,

At/Po- Raikia,

Dist- Kandhamal

3. Arnapurna Patra,

W/O Sashi Patra,

At/PO-Patrasahi, Sarangagada

Dist- Kandhamal

Present:      Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President

                   Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member

For the Complainant:               Self

For the O.P. No.1 and 2:                    Manoj Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

For the O.P. No. 3:                            Self

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra. President

          Complainant Anusuya Pradhan has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties for not providing her the machine in spite of full payment of the cost of the machine and praying therein for refund of the money paid towards the cost of machine with interest.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 22,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) to the Opposite Parties for providing her with a soap manufacturing machine for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/- (Twenty Thousand only). The amount was paid in full. But after receipt of the amount, the Opposite Parties did not provide her with the machine and made her run to them on several occasions for which she filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2. That after receipt of notice, the OP No. 1 and 2 appeared through their advocate and OP No. 3 appeared in person. Even though the OPs appeared after receipt of notice, they preferred not to challenge the allegations raised by the complainant nor filed any written reply to the allegations. Therefore the Commission proceeded to dispose of the case on the basis of the merit of the case.
3. On perusal of record, it is seen that the OPs have received a sum of Rs. 22,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) from the complainant on 03.06.2021 vide Receipt No. nil. The Learned Counsel for the OP No. 1 and 2 fairly admitted during the course of hearing that the amount has been received by the OPs even though receipt has been provided by the OP No.1. The OP No. 2 is the person who has received the amount and has signed in the money receipt and the OP No. 3 is the motivator who motivated the complainant to purchase the machine from OP No. 1. So, it is crystal clear from the documents and from the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 that the OPs have received the money from the complainant by forging out a conspiracy among themselves and jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service to the complainant and liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by her and hence the order.

O R D E R

          The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 22,000/- (Twenty Two Thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from 03.06.2021 till it is actually refunded to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) each to the complainant for deficiency in service and harassment and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand only) each towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid to the complainant.

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 31^st July 2023 in the presence of the parties.