Ritawari Pharmacy, Arpita De filed a consumer case on 12 Apr 2023 against Bird Enterprises, Pradip Sharma in the Bankura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/3/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Apr 2023.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA
Consumer Complaint No. 03/2022
Date of Filing: 05.01.2022
Before:
1. Samiran Dutta Ld. President.
2. Rina Mukherjee Ld. Member.
3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui Ld. Member.
For the Complainant: Ld. Advocate Arup Shit
For the O.P. None
Complainant
M/s Ritawari Pharmacy represented by Arpita De, W/o Nirmalya De, Village- Patpur, District- Bankura, PIN-722 201
Opposite Party
Bird Enterprises represented by Mr. Pradip Sharma and Mr. Lokesh Sharma having its Office at B/179 Rishal Garden, Nangloi Najafgarh Road, New Delhi- 110041
FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Order No.11
Dated:12-04-2023
The case is taken up for Ex-parte order.
The complainant’s case is that an order was placed for 3M make N95 mask before the O.P. but the complainant got supply of mask bearing Model No. N 95 3210 which are of very low quality and totally different from 3M make N 95 mask.
The O.P. sent invoices for supply of the impugned mask on different dates with different descriptions and in the invoices dated: 08-05-2020 the description of the mask has been described as K N 95 mask. The complainant has thereby suffered a loss of Rs.97,000/- including the Air Fare charge and Courier charges which the O.P. is liable to pay to the complainant along with compensation and litigation cost.
In spite of service of notice the O.P. did not turn up to contest the case by filing any Written version.
Having regard to the facts of the case, materials on record and submission of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant the Commission finds that the complainant is dissatisfied with the service of the O.P. for supply of mask different from what was placed for order.
In this connection the Commission likes to refer to an Advocate’s letter dated: 09-07-2020 of the complainant wherein allegation of supply of N95 mask in place of 3M N 95 mask has been ventilated but the reply Advocate’s letter dated: 15-09-2020 on behalf of the O.P. reveals in Para-6 of that letter that the complainant vide telephonic conversation intimated the O.P. that the prices for 3M mask is very high and the complainant therefore directed the O.P. to provide KN95 mask instead of 3M masks and as per the instruction of the complainant the O.P. had confirmed the order and raised invoices in support of the aforesaid products wherein the complainant has made the complete payment without any objection.
Contd…..p/2
Page: 2
It is further stated in the said Para that the O.P. had issued the invoice wherein it was specifically mentioned that mask bearing Model No. K N 95 was supplied and the complainant had also not raised any objection in respect of the same. The Invoices in question which are on record also shows that KN 95 Face Mask has been delivered to the complainant. The complainant did not refute the statement in the aforesaid reply Legal Notice by giving any further notice to the O.P. In absence of any material to substantiate the fact that there was no novation of contract between the parties for supply of KN 95 mask in place of 3M N 95 mask the case of the complainant as made out in the complaint cannot be accepted as trustworthy.
The complainant has failed to establish the prima-facie case to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence it is ordered…….
That the case be and the same is dismissed Ex-parte against the O.P. without cost.
Sample mask contained in the paper box as produced at the time of hearing be returned to the complainant forthwith.
Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.
____________________ ________________ _________________
HON’BLE PRESIDENT HON’BLE MEMBER HON’BLE MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.