DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 70 OF 2022
Date of Filing: 16.11.2022
Date of Order: 27.02. 2023
Sri Rabi Chandra Rana,
S/o Bandhaba Rana,
At-Bandhagada,
PO- Bandhagada
District-Kandhamal, 762011. …………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
Sri Gangadhar Kanhar,
S/o Kunjia Kanhar,
Village: Sundhi Gaom, Bhrungijodi
PO: Sundhi Gaom, Bhrungijodi,
PS: Phiringia,
District-Kandhamal …………………….. Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant: Self
For O.P. : Mr. Jayasingh Kanhar, Advocate
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.
Complainant Rabi Chandra Kanhar has filed this case u/s 35 of CP Act 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite Party for not refunding him a sum of Rs. 63, 450/- in spite of repeated approaches and praying therein for a direction to the Opposition Party to pay the amount with interest along with cost and compensation of Rs. 25, 000/-.
- Brief Fact leading to the case is that the Opposite Party had received a sum of Rs. 63, 450/- from the complainant to provide him certain services which he could not do and finally the matter reached the Police Station. In the Police Station, there was an amicable settlement between them and the Opposite Party paid a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- to the complainant towards part repayment and signed in the document to repay the remaining amount of Rs. 53,450/- in two installment. But, the Opposite Party failed to repay the amount as agreed and therefore, he filed this case before this Commission to recover the amount as agreed along with cost and compensation as prayed for in the complaint petition.
- After receipt of notice, the Opposition Party appeared through his Advocate and filed his written version and denied the allegation raised against him and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
- During the course of hearing, the Opposite Party was present in person and he fairly considered that he had collected the money on behalf of an organization but after he made the payment to the organization, the organization vanished and the complainant is pressing him to refund the money as he had collected it from him. On being questioned by the Commission, he stated that the organization even though received the money from him, did not acknowledge the payment in any written form and he was directed to come on some other date to receive the money receipt and on the date fixed when he reached the organization, it is found to be closed and the complainant dragged him to the Police Station and he narrated the entire fact before police and the agreement was reduced to one written agreement. He admitted that he has received the money and it is also his fault not to obtain the money receipt from his principal organization and requested the Commission to fix up a small amount to repay the complainant each month and also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5, 000/- towards cost of litigation. As the Opposite Party agreed to repay the amount and pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation and the complainant agreed to the proposal of the Opposite Party, we are not want inclined to proceed ahead with the case on merit and to settle the matter between the parties amicably and hence the order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is accordingly settled between the parties with the terms that the O.P. will go on paying a sum of Rs. 3, 000/- each month to the complainant so long as the amount of Rs. 53,450/- regularly so long as it is cleared without any break and shall pay a sum of Rs. 5, 000/- towards cost of litigation.
Computerized & corrected by me.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 27th day of February 2023 in the presence of the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
