By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

           The case of the complainant in brief is that   the OP declared by an advertisement to sell one Mahindra Flyte two wheeler being registration No.WB 18D 4585. The complainant made contact with him over telephone and agreed to purchase the said secondhand two wheeler knowing that the said vehicle is in running condition and the seller had no time in hand to operate the said vehicle, therefore he wanted to sell that two wheeler. He also took the said two wheeler and made demonstration by operating the same. The complainant also operated the same two wheeler for 5/10 minutes and it was found fit at that time. Accordingly by an agreement dated 28.05.16 he purchased the said two wheeler and came to Uluberia with his father as the pillion rider. From Uluberia they started the two wheeler for a nearby temple but the said bike stopped running after about one KM. Then the complainant came to a nearby garage and repaired the bike which took about 4/5 hours. However thereafter every now and then the bike stopped starting. The bike had also other disturbances. Tax was due. The OP did not transfer the bike officially as per terms and condition of the sale agreement between them. The complainant made an application before the AD of  CA & FBP, Purba Medinipur against the OP.  The OP did not care to attend that office in spite of being noticed by the above office.

            Hence, this case on the ground of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 In spite of issuance of notice upon the OP the OP did not turn up to contest the case. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OP.

            The points for discussion in the case are (1) whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether the claimant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

            We have gone through all the documents and the written complaint filed by the complainant. It appears from the written complaint that the complainant purchased a second hand two wheeler from the OP at a price of Rs. 24,500/-with good faith and knowing fully well that the said second hand bike is in workable condition, but soon  after he realized that the OP has cheated him by an unfair transaction. The complainant also lodged a GD at Bhupuatinagar PS vide GDE No. 1101/15, which also supports the version of the complaint case. The Complainant also filed an application before the AD of CA & FPB, Purba Medinipur, who was pleased to issue notice upon the OP for settlement of the complaint, but the OP did not turn up. In the instant case also the OP did not appear to counter the case of the complainant.

            All the above facts and circumstances leads this Forum to hold that the complainant has proved his case of unfair business transaction against the OP and hence, the complainant is entitled to get proper relief.

      Hence, it is

                                                                                            ORDERED

       That the CC No. 109 of 2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP Sri Anupam Mahapatra.

       The OP is directed to return the consideration money of Rs. 24,500/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, id the OP will be liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day as punitive charge which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund, till full realization of the above amount.                                                                                                                            

Let copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.