IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/117/2020.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
03.12.20 01.10.21 28.08.23
Complainant: Moumita Trivedi
Vill Bahara, PO Bahara,
PS-Kandi, Pin-742138
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Debashis Roy Karmakar, Karmakar Machinery
Japat Para, Near Mahabir Rice Mill Main Gate,
Beside Ghatak Bari, PO&PS-Kalna, Pin-7134090
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant :Subhanjan Sengupta
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party :S. Saha
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Moumita Trivedi (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Debashis Roy Karmakar (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant had booked a sanitary napkin production machine with the OP and accordingly the Complainant had made an advance payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 24.09.19. After that on 03.10.19 the Complainant received a phone call from the OP who advised for further payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- and immediately the Complainant somehow managed to transfer the said amount to the OP. Again on 20.10.19 the OP charged Rs. 20,000/- from this Complainant towards material charges. The Complainant had paid the same with the OP. Again on 17.10.19 the OP claimed Rs. 9,000/- from this Complainant and it was given to him. But till date the sanitary napkin production machine did not reach the hands of this Complainant.
When this Complainant charged the OP about the deficiency in his service he then replied that the machine was sent to Gujarat for some repair work and he gave a written version that the aforesaid machine would reach to this Complainant latest by 31.01.20. But till date the machine had not reached to the Complainant.
The Complainant had faced lots of trouble which was due to the negligent attitude of the OP. The OP instead of meeting the valid demands of the Complainant is trying to harass this Complainant.
The Complainant prayed for directing the OP to pay Rs. 3,39,000/- and Rs. 1,61,000/- for compensation and harassment totaling Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The OP contesting the case by filing Written Version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as there is no negligence on his part.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Undoubtedly, the Complainant paid Rs. 1,50,000/- on 24.09.19. After that the Complainant further paid Rs. 1,60,000/- and again on 20.10.19 the OP charged Rs. 20,000/- from this Complainant towards material charges and the Complainant had paid the same with the OP. Again on 17.10.19 the OP claimed Rs. 9,000/- from this Complainant and it was given to him. So, the Complainant has paid total Rs. 3,39,000/- for the purchase of Sanitary Napkin Production machine from the OP. The said fact admitted by the OP in his written version at para 6.
It is also admitted in the written version that the OP has not deliver the said machine till date rather prayed that ‘’the OP be given a scope to deliver the Sanitary Napkin Production Machine to the Complainant and then also if the OP fails to deliver the said machine the OP will be bound to follow the Forum’s order.’’
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by both the parties we are of the view that Complainant has proved her case. As the OP has not delivered the said machine to the Complainant till day here lies the deficiency of service on the part of the OP though the Complainant has paid the amount claimed by the OP for the delivery of the said sanitary napkin machine.
We find that the case has been filed through CAB. So, the Complainant is not entitled for litigation cost.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 03.12.20 and admitted on 01.10.21. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/117/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
The OP is directed to pay Rs. 3,39,000/- as the Complainant has paid for Sanitary Napkin Production Machine along with Rs. 61,000/- for mental pain and agony.
The OPis directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- ( Four Lakh only) to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this order i.d. the said amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- will carry interest @ 6% p.a. on and from 27.10.23.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member Member President.
