Date of Filing: 31-10-2013 Date of Final Order: 22-08-2014
The instant complaint has been filed by one Sunil Ch. Eshore, Secretary, Acrahat Dishari handicapped Welfare Organization U/ S 12 of the C.P. Act 1986. The fact of case as enumerated from the record is that the Complainant being the secretary of the said organization intends to purchase some wooden cot for the use of the hostel student of the organization made contact with the O.P. The Complainant has given an order to supply the wooden cot to the O.P. by giving an amount of Rs. 15,000/- through a cheque being No.000952 dated 24.10.2011 on condition to supply the same within 31.03 2012. The Opposite Party encashed the said cheque on the same day but did not supply the said furniture. The Complainant and the members of the organization made several contact, request to the O.P. but he did not pay any heed to it. Facing the situation for the relief of the Hostel Student the Complainant made a representation to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and FBP, Cooch Behar to meet up the dispute but to no good. The O.P. failed to supply the said furniture till 30.10.2013. and finding no other alternative he filed this case for proper redress and relief.
In the instant case despite receiving the notice none appear on behalf of the Opposite Party for which the matter was heard in Ex-Parte.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Point No. 1
The Complainant intended to purchase 10 wooden cot paid certain amount to the O.P. for availing proper service in due time and by entering in an agreement the O.P. accepted the same. Thus, the relation of the Complainant with the O.P. as established from the record we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as per section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act.
Point No.2
The residence & Place of Business of the O.P. is within the district of Cooch Behar. The value of the case is within the limit of Rs.20,000,00/-. So, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant case.
Point No. 3
We have gone through the record very carefully; peruse the entire documents and the Exhibits marked as 1-7 in the record also heard the argument of the Complainant in full.
On giving a close look to Exhibit No. 1, “Chuktipatra” it appears that the Complainant entered in an agreement with the Opposite Party on 24.10.2011. wherein it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party had taken Rs. 15000/- as an advance through a cheque for supplying 10 numbers wooden cot to the Complainant with an assurance to do that within 31.03.2011. There is proper seal and signature of both parties as such acceptable, beyond any manner of doubt. It also appears from Exhibit 2, that the O.P. company encashed the said cheque on the same day. It is pertinent point to mention that on 06.02.2013 the Complainant send a notice on 06.02.2013. for supplying the furniture as early as possible but to no good. The Complainant has taken initiative to mitigate the matter through the A.D. Consumer Affairs Department & Fair Business Practice but no fruitful result came out. The Opposite Party did not come forward to contest the case and the allegation of the Complainant is corroborated with the documents thus, it can safely be said that the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service. Further, the Complainant being a secretary of one Handicapped Welfare Organization and its Hostel has a responsibility to look after the convenience of the members/boarders which is totally satire and he suffered mental pain and agony due to the negligence of the Opposite Party for which deficiency in service of the O.P. cannot be ruled out. The Complainant also suffered mental pain and agony for not providing the emergency service to the boarders/student of the hostel. Moreover, the students are also suffered huge mental and physical pain for the said reason.
Point No. 4
In the light of foregoing discussion and considering the materials to its entirety, we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant has been able to prove his case and entitled to get reasonable relief. Thus, the instant case succeeds on its merit.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint do succeed and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs. 2000/-, directing the Opposite Party Abul Hossain to return Rs. 15,000/- with interest @9% from 24.10.2011 also Rs. 10,000 for mental agony and harassment of the Complainant. The O.P. is further directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 45 days failure of which the O.P. shall have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the representative complainant by hand / Registered post free of cost A/D and also to the opposite party forthwith as per rules.
