West Bengal

Nadia

CC/94/2023

KRISHNA ADHIKARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIPUL ROY (SECRETARY OF RAMPRASAD WELFARE MISSION GOVT. REGD. NGO) - Opp.Party(s)

DIPAYAN SAHA

27 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NADIA
170,DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING.
NADIA, KRISHNAGAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/94/2023
( Date of Filing : 08 Sep 2023 )
 
1. KRISHNA ADHIKARY
D/O- KANU ADHIKARY, 123 NOW 209, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA SARANI, RAJBAGANPARA, P.O. & P.S.- RANAGHAT, DIST- NADIA, PIN- 741201
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BIPUL ROY (SECRETARY OF RAMPRASAD WELFARE MISSION GOVT. REGD. NGO)
S/O- LATE BISWANATH ROY, KABIRAJPARA (BAT TALA), HALISAHAR EAST, P.O.- HAZINAGAR, P.S.- BIJPUR, DIST- 24 PGS(N), PIN- 743135
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA SAMADDER MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:DIPAYAN SAHA, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 27 Sep 2023
Final Order / Judgement

CC/94/2023

 

ORDER NO.04

DATED:27.09.2023

         

Today is fixed for admission hearing.

            Ld. Adv. for the Complainant is present.

 Hd. Ld. Adv for the complainant. Perused the record.

 Perused the documents filed by the complainant.

We find that the complainant alleged  in the Para 2 that he purchased one machine  for making  or printing Aadhaar Card  from OP and OP received Rs. 1,85,000/- and gave  receipt.

            He gave second hand Aadhaar Card making /printing machine and accessory without any documents. Complainant did not mention on what date he purchased the said machine from the OP. He did not file any receipt regarding  purchase of aforesaid machine. He further stated that he prepared  near about 5,000 Aadhaar Card by the said machine  and thereafter said machine  stopped its function. Complainant made several  information about this matter  to the OP but in vain . Thereafter he sent a advocate’s notice through his Ld. Advocate Dipayan Saha on 23.07.2018 and same was refused by the OP.Complainant gave another notice issued by  Ld. Advocate  Dipayan Saha on 31.12.2021 and OP received the same on 02.01.2023  but he is  maintaining silence.

  1. On perusal of record we find that complainant could not produce any documents regarding purchase of aforesaid machine.
  2.    OP is not a business man nor the authorized dealer.
  3. Complainant did not file any complaint before this Commission within 2 years from the date of issue of advocate letter dtd. 23.07.2018.
  4. Complainant did not file copy of any advocate letter d td. 31.12.2022 and T/R  in respect of Ld. Advocate notice which he mentioned in Para 3 in the complaint.

In view of the above we find that the complainant has failed to established prime facie case.

Moreover his grievance is also barred by limitation.

Accordingly, we find that the present case is not fit for admission

Hence

It is ordered.

Present case vide no. CC/94/2023 is dismissed being not admitted.

                       

            Member                                        Member                        President

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA SAMADDER]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.