DATE OF FILING                    :     21-10-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      16-12-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     23-07-2014.

M/S. Govardhan Das P.A. ( Calcutta ),

a  partnership firm represented by

its partner Jagindar Raj Aggarwal,

son of late  Govardhan Das,

offince at 32, Netaji  Subhas  Road, P.S. Barabazar,

Kolkata – 700001,

factory at P-96, Benaras Road, P.O. Natajigarh,

P.S. Liluah, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 108. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Complainant.

-          Versus   -

Calcutta Yellowpages Company Pvt. Limited,

represented by its

Senior Executive Jayanta Bhattacharya,

Code no. 9231210966, office at C.L-236,

Salt Lake, Sector – II, 2^nd floor,

Kolkata – 700 091.-------------------------------------------------------------------Opposite Party.

                                                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.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to refund a sum of Rs. 32,042/- together with interest or alternatively to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the complainant as the o.p. in spite receiving the amount by issuing receipt did not execute the order placed by the complainant  for web site designing and promotion with the required jobs as categorized in para 3 of the complaint.

2.               The o.p. in the written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and contended interalia that there is no provision for refund of the money and that some portion of the work has been done and they are ready to do the rest.

3.        Upon pleadings of both parties three points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to  try the complaint ?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

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

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Point No. 1   :

           This Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain the complaint U/S 11(2)( c ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as the factory wherein the agreement was made is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. This point is accordingly disposed is.

POINT NOS. 2 & 3 :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the o.p. company received the amount of Rs. 32,042/- for doing the necessary job after issuing the receipt. On scrutiny of the enclosures it appears that repeated reminders and advocate’s letters were sent to the o.p. who did not pay any importance to the same. The conduct of the o.p. definitely comes within the purview of  deficiency in service and we have no hesitation in our mind that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.  

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 376 of 2013 ( HDF  376 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the o.p.

      The o.p. be  directed to refund the amount of Rs. 32,042/- to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of this order.   

      The O.P. do further pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment and a litigation costs of  Rs. 2,000/-.      

      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.