West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/36/2016

Kuntal Halder, S/O Lt. Monoranjan Halder. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. Ganapati Enterprise. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _36_ OF ___2016_

 

DATE OF FILING : 18.4.2016                       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  07.03.2017

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT              :   Kuntal Halder,s/o late Monoranjan Halder of Vill. Baratala, P.O Bahirkunja, P.S. Nodakhali, Dist. South 24-Parganas.  Pin-743318

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. M/s Ganapati Enterprise of 1/33, Jatindas Nagar, Belgharia, Kolkata – 56 represented by Proprietor Arup Kumar Pal.

                                              2.     Tower Infotech Co.(Ltd.) of M.B Road, 5^th Floor, Spencer Plaza, 769, Annasalai , Chennai Pin-600002, rep0resented by S. Biswas, Managing Director.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Subrata Sarker, Member

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant.

The complainant has a vacant land measuring about 2 cattah. In this vacant land the complainant agreed to make a lease agreement dated 9.3.2015 with O.P-2, to install mobile tower against monthly rent basis of Rs.18000/- for the livelihood of the family  of the complainant.

The O.P-2 entrusted/authorized M/s Ganapati Enterprise ,the O.P-1 to measure the spot of the complainant and install tower there.

The O.P-1 agreed to install the tower and all the associated works to be done on behalf of the O.P-2 and for the work O.P-1 took money from the complainant to complete the work of installation of the tower at different dates totaling to Rs.1,97,000/-.

That after no work had been performed by the O.P-1, the O.P-1 gave two cheque amounting to Rs.1.00 lac and Rs.35000/- as repayment of the amount taken from the complainant. But the cheque were returned with endorsement “Fund insufficient”.

After the cheque has been dishonoured the O.P-1 requested the complainant not to file under N.I Act and promised to pay the dishonoured amount by cash to the complainant. But after the elapse of three months from the dishonor of the cheque O.P-1 neglected the complainant to pay back the amount due.

The case runs ex-parte against the O.Ps.

                                                      Points for decision

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

 

 

 

                                                 Decision with reasons

The complainant entered into an agreement with O.P-2 on 9.4.2015 wherein it was mentioned that the complainant was the land owner having title of the property and the O.P-2 is engaged to built up mobile tower . As such complainant was willing to make lease agreement to build up mobile tower for the period of 20 years. The O.p-2 shall pay Rs.18,00,000/- for one time and O.P-2 shall also pay Rs.18000/- per month to the complainant. The tenure of the lease agreement will be continued for 20 years and after the said period the agreement will be terminated until and unless renewed by the O.P-2.

The O.P-2 entrusted /authorized O.P-1 only to measure the spot. In the agreement between the complainant and O.P-2 nothing was mentioned that the complainant shall have to make payment to O.P-1 for installation of tower. So, it is not clear to us why the complainant made a payment of Rs.1,97,000/- to  O.P-1 when nothing was mentioned in the agreement that the complainant shall have to pay money to the O.P-1 for installation of tower.

O.P-2 with whom the agreement was made never asked the complainant to pay any money to O.P-1 for installation of tower, then why the complainant paid Rs.1,97,000/- to  O.P-1 without any ground which cannot be believed.

From the foregoing discussion ti is manifest that the complaint case is baseless, frivolous and vexatious and lot of suppression of material facts. With that observation we hold that the complaint should be treated in view of Section 26 of the C.P Act, 1986 in order to give message to this type of complainant so that justice can be properly meted out.

Hence, it is

                                                        Ordered

That the complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the complainant to the consumer Legal Aid Funds within 30 days from the date, since the complaint is treated as a vexatious and frivolous complaint in the eye of law as per observation made in above and thereby needy complainant will get justice in a genuine case in near future from this end.

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                                                                                                           President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

                                        Ordered

That the complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the complainant to the consumer Legal Aid Funds within 30 days from the date, since the complaint is treated as a vexatious and frivolous complaint in the eye of law as per observation made in above and thereby needy complainant will get justice in a genuine case in near future from this end.

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                                                                                                           President