IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/187/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

    06.11.17                                  14.11.17                                        07.03.19             

Complainant: Moumita Halder

W/O- Sumit Mandal,

24/32/11, Joy Chand Rd.

PO- Khagra, PS- Berhampore,

Pin- 742103

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.Arijit Das

S/O- Nibaran Das,

Goaljan Refugee Ghat,

 PO- Radharghat, PS- Berhampore,

Pin- 742187

2.Manager, Soft,

Pragan Market

PO & PS- Berhampore,

Pin- 742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             : Smt. Monalisa Dutta Thakur.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Joydeep Misra.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2            : None.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

                                     FINAL ORDER

Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Moumita Halder (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Arijit Das & Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainant and the OP No.2 entered into a contract for capturing photography and videos of full wedding ceremony of both houses (own house of the Complainant and in laws house) and delivery for the same was agreed within one month of the marriage for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

The Complainant advanced Rs.4,000/-. But after waiting for three months when the Complainant had not received any response contacted with OP and come to know that he was unable to provide photos due to crack of hard disk except a minimum number of photos of groom house, hearing so, the Complainant took back the Hard Disk and able to recover 100% data from which only one hundred fifty photos were recovered and nothing else, as no other photos and videos were stored in the Hard Disk. The Complainant paid Rs.15,000/- for data recovery and returned back the hard disk to the OP and the OP promised to pay compensation but the OP failed to keep such promise and the Complainant made a complaint before CA&FBP but all went in vein. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case for appropriate relief.

After service of notice the OP No.1 filed W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable against him as he is only an employee of OP No.2.

OP No.2 after service of notice did not turned up to controvert the plea of the Complainant. So, the case preceded ex-parte against OP No.2.

Now the questions arise whether the Complaint is maintainable or not and whether Complainant is a consumer and she is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reason

                 Heard.

                 Considered.

All  the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.

      On careful perusal of the evidence, we find that the Complainant has not filed single of evidence to show that any privity of contract has been made between the Complainant and the OP. Ld Advocate for the complainant stated at the time of  argument that there was verbal agreement between the parties .Ld Advocate for the O.P drew our attention to the documents filed by the complainant which  speaks that a sum of Rs 8000/- is due which is payable by the complainant .This document bears signature of one Sujit Mondal and Arijit Das. So in this present case the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer as the document filed by the complainant bears the signature of other person. Consequently, the complainant has no locus standi to maintain this consumer complainant.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 06.11.17 and admitted on 14.11.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders..

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                     ORDERED

that the complaint Case No. CC/187/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP No.1 and dismissed ex-parte against Op No.2 without cost.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

             President.                        

Member                                                                                          President.