DATE OF FILING                    :     25-05-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      10-07-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     14-10-2014.

Mukherjee Enterprise,

situated at Ichapur Santragachi, Howrah,

being represented by its proprietor Viz. Subrata Kumar Mukherjee,

son of Sri Dulal  Chandra Mukherjee,

resident at T. Kolay House, Dasnagar,

District –Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Banerjee  Refregerator,

            being represented by its proprietor  Dipak Banerjee,

            situated at P.O. Nona,  Chandanpukur,

            Barrackpore – 700122.

2.         United Bank of India,

            Sahanpur Branch,

            situated at Makardah Road, P.O. Dasnagar,

            District – Howrah.

Howrah.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Mukherjee Enterprise,  represented by its proprietor  Subrata

Mukherjee by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p.no. 1 to  supply the refrigerator in question alternatively to refund the amount of Rs. 45,000/- , being the advance payment for purchasing refrigerator with interest @ 18% p.a. from 28-07-2012  till realization,  to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs along with further compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for causing physical mental harassment and  Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along with  other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.               The brief facts of the case is that the proprietor of the  complainant, Subrata Kr. Mukherjee, as a handicapped person, applied for the   distributorship of Amul Company for selling ice cream in his locality  vide Annexure P/2 to run his livelihood. For that purpose complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- towards advance payment to o.p. no. 1 on 28-07-2014  for purchasing a refrigerator for total consideration of Rs. 70,000/- vide Annexure P/3. It was agreed by the o.p. no. 1 to make one 900 liter  deep fridge with G.I. Sheet and stainless steel top  and to deliver it within 15 days from the date of agreement i.e., 28-07-2012. Further on demand of o.p. no. 1 complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- on 08-08-2012,  o Rs. 10,000/- on 10-08-2012, Rs. 15,000/- on 27-08-2012, lastly Rs. 10,000/- on 13-09-2012  through o.p. no. 2. Accordingly complainant paid Rs. 55,000/- vide  Annexure P/4 in total to the o.p. no. 1.  Thereafter on and from 20-09-2012 complainant repeatedly requested o.p. no. 1 to supply the said fridge on receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- as it was urgently required to be installed for the purpose of getting distributorship of  Amul Ice Cream. Even complainant told o.p. no. 1 that in absence of the said refrigerator his application for getting distributorship would be cancelled. But o.p. no. 1 did not pay any heed to his request.  However, o.p.no. 1 paid Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant without any consent but never bother to supply the refrigerator rather during March, 2014 o.p. no. 1 informed the complainant that they would neither supply the refrigerator nor refund the balance advance of Rs. 45,000/- to the complainant. so the complainant has totally lost the hope of getting the distributorship of Amul Company and his means of livelihood is also at stake. So being frustrated and finding no other alternative  complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayer.     

3.               Notices were served upon both the o.ps.  But they never  appeared and filed any written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint along with the documents filed by the complainant. From Annexure P/1 it is evident that complainant is a handicapped person who wished to maintain his livelihood by way of getting distributorship of  Amul Company vide Annexure P/2 for which refrigerator is of utmost importance. Better to say, it is not possible for anyone to deal in ice cream selling. O.p. no. 1, with utter negligence, dealt with the complainant without any humanity. From Annexure P/3 it is clear that o.p. no. 1 received the first installment of Rs. 10,000/- on  28-07-2012 from the complainant and also endorsed that the delivery would be made within 15 days. And by 13-09-2012, complainant paid the major portion of the consideration amount, being Rs. 55,000/- to o.p. no. 1. O.p. no. 1 received the same silently and also remained silent about the delivery of the said refrigerator which is nothing but a gross deficiency in providing service coupled with unfair trade practice. Moreover, even after receiving the summons of this Forum, o.p.no. 1 neither appeared nor filed any written version. So all the allegations of the complainant made out in his complaint petition remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.    Accordingly we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant shall be allowed against o.p. no. 1.  And there is no deficiency of service on the part of o.p. no. 2 as complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 45,000/- to o.p.no. 1 only through o.p. no. 2.   Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  264 of 2014 ( HDF 264  of 2014 )  be  allowed ex parte   with  costs  against  the O.P. no. 1 and dismissed against o.p. no. 2 without costs.   

      That the  O.P. no. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 45,000/- to the complainant.  

      The complainant do get an award of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

      That the o.p. no. 1 is  further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 70,000/-  to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid  amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.      

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.