IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 43/2016.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
29.03.2016 11.04.2016 12.09.2017
Madhusudan Das,
S/o Manik Chandra Das,
Vill.: Paschimgamini,
P.O. Balarampur,
P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. ………… Complainant.
-vs-
- Bijoy Kr Gupta,
of Dharampur Shivpur,
P.O. Geeta Vatika,
Dist. Gorakhpur,
Uttar Pradesh, Pin 273006.
- Branch manager,
SBI Asuran Chowk Branch,
Mangalam Vihar Colony Jaol Road,
Shahpur, P.O. Geeta Vatika,
Dist. Gorakhpur,
Uttar Pradesh, Pin 273006. ....... Opposite Parties.
Ld. Partha Majumdar, ……… for Complainant
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
Present : SriAnupam Bhattacharyya………… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .… Member.
Sri Manas Kumar mukherjee .…. …. Member.
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty,Member.
Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the Complainants, contending gross negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service towards the Complainants by the Opposite Parties.
In summarizing, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 21,500/- only as advance payment in the Bank account of the Opposite Party No. 1 in the Bank of the Opposite Party No. 2 on 06.01.2016for purchasing the MRF Tyre. But after duly receiving the said advanced amount the Opposite Party No. 1had failed to deliver the said MRF Tyre to the Complainant.
The Complainant severally requested the Opposite Party No. 1 to supply the said MRF Tyre or to refund the said advanced amount which had already been paid by the Complainant in the Bank account of the Opposite Party No. 1,
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
but the Opposite Party No. 1did not pay any heed to it for which the Complainant had/has to suffer huge financial loss and damages what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party No. 1 towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Parties.
Despite service of the notice, no Opposite Parties ever appeared before the Forum in person and/or through their authorized representative/Ld. Advocate to contest the case by filing Written Version and so the instant case has been heard ex-parte against both the Opposite Party.
Point for Determination
The point for determination in the instant case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the material evidences on record.
Decision with Reasons
In order to prove his allegation set forth in the complaint, the Complainant deposed in this case as sole witness by way of affidavit and also produced some documents in support of his case.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
The main allegation of the Complainant specifically against the Opposite Party No. 1is that, in spite of payment of advanced amount, whether the Opposite Party No. 1 neglected or deficient to provide the proper services by delivering the said MRF Tyre in issue towards the Complainant.
On overall evaluation of the argument by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and perusing the material documents in record, it is evident that, the Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 21,500/- only as advance payment in the Bank account of the Opposite Party No. 1 in the Bank of the Opposite Party No. 2 on 06.01.2016 for purpose of purchasing the MRF Tyre.
The record reveals from the photocopies of the documents (the ‘Deposited Slip’ of the Opposite Party No. 2 Bank) filed by the Complainant that the Complainant had actually deposited the amount of Rs. 21,500/- only on the SBI, (the Opposite Party No. 2) on 06.01.2016 and it is also evident from the said submitted documents the Opposite Party No. 1 had duly received the said amount from the Complainant.
But the fact remains that the instead of receiving the alleged advance amount paid by the Complainant the Opposite Party No. 1 miserably failed to deliver the said product (MRF Tyre) in issue towards the Complainant.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
It is revealed from the record that the Complainant severally requested the Opposite Party No. 1 to supply the said MRF Tyre in issue or to refund the said advanced amount of Rs. 21,500/- only which had already been paid by the Complainant in the Bank account of the Opposite Party No. 1.
Moreover the Complainant specifically stated that the Complainant desirous to purchase the said MRF Tyre in issue for maintaining his livelihood and for such non supplying of the same the Complainant had/has to suffer huge financial loss and damages by such deficient and/or negligent act of the Opposite Party No. 1.
So, it is crystal clear from the above discussion that the Complainant proved that the Opposite Party No. 1 had received the advanced payment of Rs. 21,500/- only from the Complainant but miserably failed to deliver the said product in issue (MRF tyre) towards the Complainant which undoubtedly proved that the Opposite Party No. 1 had not provide the proper service towards the Complainant rather the Opposite Party No. 1 is highly deficient and/or negligent in rendering proper service towards the Complainant in all means.
But it is also apparent that the Opposite Party No. 2 (in which Bank the Opposite party No. 1 has an account and in which Bank the Complainant had already been deposited the said advanced amount in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1) has no fault in this regard towards the Complainant. So the Opposite Party No. 2 has done no deficiency and/or negligence towards the Complainant and the Complainant has no grievance against the Opposite Party No. 2 Bank.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
Moreover, all the allegations made by the Complainant were never challenged by the Opposite Party, even the Opposite Party never appeared to contest the case. Therefore, there are no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the Complainant.
Thus, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Opposite party No. 1 is strictly liable to refund the said paid advanced amount of Rs. 21,500/- only towards the Complainant along with compensation for his financial loss and harassment and mental agony but no compensation shall be awarded and/or allowed against the Opposite Party No. 2 as the Opposite Party No. 2 has no fault towards the Complainant.
Therefore, in the light of the above analysis it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get relief as prayed for, and consequently, the points for determination are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 1 with cost of Rs. 3,000/- only and is dismissed the case ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 2 without any cost.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
That the Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 21, 500/- only (the actual paid amount in advance for the said MRF Tyre in issue) to the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Party No. 1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation for his financial loss and harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Party No. 1 within a period of one month from the date of this order, the Opposite Party No. 1 shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, which amount shall be deposited by the said default Opposite Parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
MEMBER MEMBER RESIDENT
