District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/39/2022

(Date of Filing:-11.03.2022)

Sri Paritosh Chandra Das,

Kalupukur, Garedhar,

P.O. Chandannagar, P.S Chandannnagar,

District Hooghly, Pin:- 712136

Versus

          Sri Asok Singha,

          The Managing Director, Toto Bazar, E-Rickshaw,

           Katjuridanga, Purulia Road, P.O. Kendua, P.S. Bankura

           District:- Bankura,  Pin-722102

……Opposite Party

Before:-

           Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

          Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member

PRESENT:

Dtd. 28. 06. 2024

Final Order/Judgment

DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA:- PRESIDING MEMBER

The instant case filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 originates from the grievances of the complainant in the matter of placing an order for purchasing of an E-Rickshaw with the OP, consequent advance payment of an amount of Rs.40,000/-, alleged non-delivery of the consignment and being cold shouldered by the OP, when asked for the refund of the money already paid as advance payment.

Filtering out the unnecessary and somewhat irrelevant details incorporated in the complaint petition, the complainant’s case may be summarized as follows.

The complainant, reportedly an orthopedically handicapped person aged about 71 years, for smooth and easy movement, placed an order for an E-Rickshaw with the OP, the consideration price of which was fixed at Rs.70,000/-.

Accordingly, pursuant to the primary negotiation, the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 22.10.2020 as advance payment to the OP from his bank account through NEFT.

However, the OP allegedly neither delivered the said E-Rickshaw, nor made any contact with the complainant.

A request letter for making the refund dtd.09.11.2021 and a legal notice dtd.18.01.2022 sent to the OP, claiming the refund yielded no result.

Allegedly, certain hooligans came down to the Complainant’s place on 05.03.2022, used abusive languages and warned him of dire consequences in case of any further claim for the advance money is made by the Complainant.

The complainant thus approached to this Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the opposite party to make refund of the amount of Rs.40,000/- along with applicable interest/-, to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and agony, cost of the case which is not specified and other reliefs as provided by law which is also not specified.

The Complainant, to corroborate his claim has submitted copies of NEFT bank challan related to the advance payment, physical disability certificate issued by the concerned Government authority, request letter and legal notice sent to the OP and postal track reports thereof.

Evidence on affidavit and Brief Notes of Argument filed by the Complainant are almost replicas of the complaint petition.

The complainant is a resident within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/- Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Cause of action arose first on 22.10.2020 and thereafter on 09.11.2021, 18.01.2022, and lastly on 05.03.2022 and there is continued cause of action.

The issues whether there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the OP’s part and whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief will be taken together in the concluding part of the order as the issues are mutually inter-related.

It will be worth mentioning that the instant case eventually ran ex parte against the sole OP. However the OP at the initial stage filed written version and evidence on affidavit. But the OP had neither filed the BNA nor participated in the argument of the case.

As the OP filed the W/V and evidence on affidavit, the contents of those documents deserves mention in this order.

The sole OP in his written version admits to have received the advance payment of Rs.40,000/- from the Complainant but at once claims to have supplied the vehicle to the complainant. It is further claimed that due to ‘colour dispute’ the Complainant refused to receive the vehicle. OP claims also that an offer from his end was extended to the Complainant to take back the advance payment.

The entire written version is actually constructed in thoroughly incorrect English which does not make any sense. However in the concluding part of the written version, the OP intends to refund back the advance money paid by the Complainant in two installments and accordingly makes a prayer to the Commission in this regard.

Now in the evidence on affidavit the OP contradicting his statements made in the written version presents a totally different story.Here he claims that initially the E-Rickshaw which the Complainant chose to purchase was worth Rs.97,000/- but the said model was not available at that point of time. The Complainant allegedly declined to take any other model.

Decision with reasons:-

However, in support of the claims made in the written version and in the evidence on affidavit, the OP has failed grossly to produce a single piece of corroborating evidence to substantiate his claims. Besides, the content of the written version is blatantly contradictory to the content of the evidence on affidavit. The same indicates that the statements incorporated in the written version and the evidence on affidavit are far from the actual truth and hard reality. The OP by contradicting himself has proved that he has distorted, fabricated and misrepresented the facts.

The Commission on perusal of materials on records and on examination of the series of events as depicted by the Complainant is of the opinion that there was glaring deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the OP’s part.

  Hence, it is

                                                     ORDERED

that the OP will pay back the advance payment of Rs.40,000/- made by the Complainant against the proposed purchase of the E-Rickshaw, with interest @9% for the period from 22.10.2020 to the date of payment of the principal amount.

Apart from the above, the OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and further Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

The OP is directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the OP will be liable to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/ in the Consumer Legal Aid A/c.

Thus the complaint case no.39/2022 be and the same is allowed ex parte but in part.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the respective website i.e.www.confonet.nic.in