West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/8/2016

Jaba Sardar , W/O Mrinal Kanti Sardar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Balaji Eco- Tech. - Opp.Party(s)

Papri Dey Chakraborty.

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _8_ OF ___2016_

 

DATE OF FILING : 1.2.2016                         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  24.6.2016_

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay                             

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Subratta Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT              :       Jaba Sardar,w/o Mrinal Kanti Sardar of Sonarpur, Purba Gashiara, Katpole(Checken Hatchery) ,Kolkata – 150.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. Balaji Eco-Tech , 24/1, Onkarman Jetia Road, Batiatala, Howrah-711 103.

                                              2.    Ma Bipattarani Techno Enterprise, Purba Noapara, Beside of Union Bank, Sonarpur Station Road, Kolkata – 150.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

The short case of the complainant is that he purchased E-Rickshaw from the O.P-2 by paying a sum of Rs. 1 ,01,000/- vide bill no.153 dated 8.9.2015 issued by O.P-1 through O.P-2. It has claimed that O.P-1 is the distributor/manufacturer of E-Rickshaw which is battery operated and O.p-1 is the agent of the said E Rickshaw . It has further claimed that complainant has purchased the said E-Rickshaw for earning and maintaining his livelihood through loan from several persons. It has further claimed that soon after delivery of the said Rickshaw it was observed many manufacturing defects, particularly in the battery and charger ,for which complainant could not start the same and ply the same and as such complainant is suffering monetary loss of Rs.300/- per day. It has further claimed that inspite of several approach to replace or refund the money the O.P-2 did not care about the prayer of the complainant and inspite of that directed to contact the O.P-1 at Howrah. It has further stated that he has lost earning @300/- per day which complainant expected to earn plying the E-Rickshaw. Hence, this case with a prayer to refund Rs.1,01,000/- with interest @18% p.a, or to replace the E-Rickshaw with a new one ,damage @300/- per day totaling to Rs.36,000/- ,cost Rs.25000/- etc.

It appears that summon was served against the O.Ps and inspite of delivery of summon and fixing a date for written version none appears ,that is why, the case is taken up for exparte hearing.

Points for decision in this case is whether the O.P has any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

We have perused the money receipt of Rs.1,01,000/- which was issued by the O.P-1. There is no convincing evidence to come to a finding that the E-Rickshaw having any defect and unable to ply on road by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that soon after delivery of the said E-Rickshaw he came to learn that the said Rickshaw has so many manufacturing defects i.e. battery and charger, for which, complainant did not start the same and ply the same. If that be the position, how the complainant assessed that he would be able to earn Rs.300/- per day when the Rickshaw has not plied any single day after purchase. So, that suffering of monetary loss @300/- per day has no basis at all.  Until and unless he had earning through the said Rickshaw ,it cannot be said monetary loss @300/- per day, it may be more than Rs.300/- or less than Rs.300/-.

The moot question is whether the battery and charger is defective one , has not been strictly proved by any technical person and to that effect no report is filed.

However, considering all pros and cons it has come to our knowledge from the money receipts issued by the O.p-1 that complainant paid the said amount of Rs.1,01,000/- on 8.9.2015 to O.P-1. So, if we dismiss the same on technical ground then the suffering of the poor complainant cannot be meted out in the eye of Law when the procedure is running as a beneficial legislation ,not strictly followed the Evidence Act, for which, we propose that the amount of Rs.1,01,000/- should be returned along with simple banking interest as prevailing nowadays on savings account of any Nationalized Bank from the date of purchase i.e. 8.9.2015 till its realization.

The non-appearance of the O.P clearly suggest that the claim of the complainant is unchallenged one and definitely there was inherent defect in the battery and charger, that is why, O.P did not contest the case. So, although we find that there is no technical expert report but when the allegation is unchallenged the said thing should not play in the mind of the bench which is running under the principle of natural justice.

Accordingly it is,

                                                            Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed in exparte.

The O.P-1 is directed to refund Rs.1,01,000/- along with simple banking interest as prevailing nowadays from the date of purchase i.e. 8.9.2015 to till its realization ,within one from the date of this order, failing which O.P -1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with the principal amount.

Complainant is directed to hand over the E-Rickshaw to the O.P-1 as it where basis positively immediately after receiving the said Rs. 101000/-.

Both the O.Ps are directed to pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the stipulated date is over.

 

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

Member                                               Member                                                                       President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

           

 

 

                                                            Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed in exparte.

The O.P-1 is directed to refund Rs.1,01,000/- along with simple banking interest as prevailing nowadays from the date of purchase i.e. 8.9.2015 to till its realization ,within one from the date of this order, failing which O.P -1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with the principal amount.

Complainant is directed to hand over the E-Rickshaw to the O.P-1 as it where basis positively immediately after receiving the said Rs. 101000/-.

Both the O.Ps are directed to pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the stipulated date is over.

 

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

Member                                               Member                                                                       President